Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar in respect of the Assessment Year 2010-11, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the orders of CIT(A) is bad, against the facts and law. 2. That the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld order u/s 143(3)/147 without service of notice u/s 148 on or before 31.03.2017.
Rajeev Bhatia v. ITO 3. That the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld notice u/s 148on the wrong facts and premise. 4. That the CIT(A) has wrongly taken sale consideration of property of Rs. 42,62,500/- instead of actual receipt of Rs. 34,69,000/-. 5. That the CIT(A) has wrongly added and amount of Rs.8,22,158 on account of Long Term Capital Gain. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal before final hearing.”
None attended for the assessee, however, after hearing the ld. DR for the department, we decided the appeal on merits after going through the facts on record.
At the outset, it is noted that the ld. CIT(A) has merely reproduced the finding of the AO. He has also stated the fact recording the copy of FIR filed by the assessee and that the part of the sale consideration of the transaction has not been received by the assessee, therefore, no capital gain ought to have been imposed on the amount which has not been received. It is noted that the authorities below have neither mentioned the mode of the execution of the sale transaction of the immovable property either way of agreement to sale or registered sale deed and the mode of the receipt of the amount of the sale consideration. The ld. CIT(A) has merely mentioned, however value of consideration which have been received or to be received for determining the capital gain. 4. Thus, the authorities below have not ascertained the actual amount of sale consideration received by the assessee against the sale of the property so as to determine the tax liability of the assessee towards the capital gains. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have examined the sale transaction by bringing the documentary evidences on record to determine
Rajeev Bhatia v. ITO the actual value of sale consideration while adjudicating upon the grounds of appeal of the assessee, such an order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in mechanical manner cannot be approved. In our considered opinion, this is a fit case to be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) to deiced the issue afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard to prove its claim before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we remand back the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to consider the claim of the assessee afresh after taking into consideration, the documentary evidences filed by the assessee before him and would be filed during the course of fresh appellate proceedings. At the same time, the appellant assessee is directed to co-operate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.05.2022.