Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1568 - AT - Income TaxAddition of capital gain - assessee not fully disclosed the accrued capital gain - proof of considerations receipt - Held that - The facts of the case of assessee are admittedly identical as have been decided in the case of Shri C.S. Atwal Vs CIT, Ludhiana 2015 (7) TMI 878 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT issue of exigibility to capital gain in favour of the assessee and against the revenue wherein held as no possession had been given by the transferor to the transferee of the entire land in part performance of JDA so as to fall within the domain of Section 53A of 1882 Act. No addition on account of capital gain for which no consideration was received. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues:
1. Allowance of appeal by the CIT(A) without appreciating the facts of the case. 2. Deletion of additions made under Long Term Capital Gain. 3. Interpretation of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a similar case. Issue 1: The appeal by revenue was directed against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2007-08. The main contention was that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without fully appreciating the facts of the case. The Assessing Officer had made additions under Long Term Capital Gain, and the CIT(A) had deleted these additions. The revenue argued that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the case. Issue 2: The case involved a housing society that entered into a joint development agreement with two companies. The Assessing Officer calculated the capital gain based on the consideration receivable in cash and in kind. The assessee had disclosed a lower capital gain in the return of income. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of capital gain based on a similar judgment by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in another case. Issue 3: The assessee cited a judgment by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a case similar to the present one. The CIT(A) relied on this judgment to delete the addition of capital gain. The revenue contended that a departmental appeal was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. However, the ITAT Chandigarh found that the issue was already decided in favor of the assessee by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, and the pendency of the departmental appeal was not sufficient grounds to rule otherwise. Therefore, the departmental appeal was dismissed. In conclusion, the ITAT Chandigarh dismissed the departmental appeal, upholding the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the additions made under Long Term Capital Gain. The judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a similar case was a crucial factor in this decision, and the pendency of a departmental appeal before the Supreme Court did not alter the outcome.
|