2020 (3) TMI 508 - HC - Income Tax

Nature of property sold - Whether the property which is subject matter of the sale deed was an agricultural property? - HELD THAT - We set aside the impugned order made by the ITAT and the order dated 28th October, 2013 made by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well, and restore the Assessee's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on all grounds. We make it clear that all contentions of all parties are left open to be adjudicated by the Commissioner (Appeals) in accordance with law and on their own merits. The substantial question of law framed in this appeal is not answered. Instead, the same is left for the determination of the Commissioner (Appeals) alongwith other two grounds which had in fact been raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) i.e. ground Nos.1 and 2.

Issues Involved:
1. Determining the appropriate assessment year for capital gains.
2. Establishing whether the property in question was agricultural.
3. Reviewing the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) and ITAT.
4. Remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.

Analysis:

1. Appropriate Assessment Year for Capital Gains:
The appeal in question was admitted based on the substantial question of law regarding the assessment year for capital gains arising from the property transfer. The main issue was whether the assessment year should be 2009-2010 when the original sale deed was executed in 2008-2009, or 2010-2011 due to a Rectification Deed substantially altering the original sale deed. The court acknowledged this substantial question of law but also highlighted the importance of determining if the property was agricultural, which could impact the tax liability.

2. Nature of the Property:
The court noted that the nature of the property as agricultural was a crucial factor in determining the tax liability. Despite the Assessee giving up this ground before the Commissioner (Appeals) and ITAT, the court felt that this point, being fundamental, needed adjudication. The court accepted that the Chartered Accountant representing the Assessee may have focused on one ground to the detriment of others, leading to adverse decisions by the ITAT. Consequently, the court set aside the orders by ITAT and the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow fresh adjudication on all grounds, emphasizing that all contentions should be considered on their merits.

3. Review of Previous Decisions:
In reviewing the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) and ITAT, the court found that the Assessee's appeal was not adequately considered, especially regarding the grounds that were not emphasized. The court highlighted the need for a comprehensive review and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh adjudication, ensuring that all relevant grounds are considered, including those related to the Assessee's husband's appeal concerning the same property.

4. Remand for Fresh Adjudication:
Ultimately, the court remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh adjudication on all grounds, including the assessment year for capital gains and the nature of the property. The court instructed the parties to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) and file a copy of the court's order for further proceedings. By leaving the substantial question of law and other grounds for determination by the Commissioner (Appeals), the court aimed to ensure a comprehensive review of the case in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay set aside the previous orders and directed a fresh adjudication by the Commissioner (Appeals) on all grounds, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant aspects, including the nature of the property and the assessment year for capital gains.

← Previous Next →