M/S. Satnam Overseas Exports, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 4486/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2017AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Years 2010-11 Satnam Overseas Exports, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 201, Vipps Centre, 2- 28, Community Complex, New Delhi. Masjid Moth, Gk-Ii, New Delhi. Pan: Aacfs 5863 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Shri Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2017 Order This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A)- Xix, New Delhi, Vide Order Dated 21.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised As Many As Eleven Grounds Of Appeal. As A Matter Of Fact The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Pressed Only Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 Which Pertained To One Issue Only & The Said Grounds Are Reproduced Hereinbelow. “3. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That No Cognizance Can Be Taken Of The Claim Made By The Assessee That Sale Of Property Be Treated As Capital Gain & Indexation Benefit Should Be Allowed To The Assessee. The Action Of The Cit(A) In Rejecting The Claim Is Illegal & Bad In Law. 4. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Assessee Did Not Acquire Any Capital Asset & Hence Did Not Acquire Any Rights Over The Property. 5. The Interpretation Given By The Cit(A) Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Contrary To The Judgments & Well Settled Principles Of Law. Moreover The Cit(A) Has Failed To Examine The Material On Record In A Judicious Manner.” 2
For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri
Section 10Section 10(33)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)(ii)
…as empowered to deal with the issue and was entitled to determine the claim of loss, if at all, under one section/provision or the other. 11. Decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) was again relied upon by the Revenue in CIT Vs. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd., [2010] 328 ITR 338 (Delhi) but the contention 5 was not accepted, observing that the tribunal‟s jurisdiction is comprehensive and assimilates issues in the appeal from the order of the CIT (Appeals) and the tribunal has the discretion to allow a new ground to be raised. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with order passed by…
