2020 (7) TMI 277 - AT - Income Tax

Capital asset chargeable to tax u/s. 45 (5) - land in question was situated within Municipal Limits of Faridabad - HELD THAT - The fact is that the assessment order was framed exparte. The documents filed before us show that the assessee has entrusted his counsel to furnish evidence before the first appellate authority but a perusal of the order of the first appellate authority show that the appellate proceedings were not properly attended. We have also given through the application for the admission of additional evidences. We are of the considered view that these documents go to the root of the matter. Therefore, we deem it fit to restore the entire quarrel to the files of the AO. The assessee is directed to furnish all those documents before the AO and the AO is directed to decide the issue fresh after considering the documents and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

Issues:
1. Appellant's claim of not receiving proper advice from the Chartered Accountant.
2. Taxability of sales consideration of agricultural land and old house as capital gain.
3. Treatment of indexed cost and market value of agricultural land and old house.
4. Calculation of taxable income and indexed cost of inherited property.
5. Consideration of deductions/exemptions under Capital Gain.
6. Compliance with notice requirements under Section 144, 142(1), 147, and 148.
7. Compliance with Section 250(6) for passing a speaking order.
8. Adequacy of opportunity provided to the appellant.
9. Legality of the order passed by the CIT(A).

Analysis:

1. The appellant raised concerns about not receiving proper advice from their Chartered Accountant, leading to non-compliance with Income Tax Law. They sought an opportunity to explain their case and present necessary documents to the Assessing Officer.

2. The issue of taxability arose regarding the entire sales consideration of agricultural land and an old house as capital gains. The appellant claimed reinvestment in agricultural land and residential property, seeking exemption from tax on the sales proceeds.

3. Disputes emerged over the treatment of indexed cost and market value of the inherited agricultural land and old house. The appellant contested the AO's approach of using an estimated indexed cost and not considering the market value as of 01-04-1981.

4. Errors in calculating the taxable income and indexed cost of the inherited property were highlighted, emphasizing the need for accurate assessments.

5. The appellant challenged the failure to consider deductions/exemptions applicable under the head of Capital Gain, raising concerns about the correctness of the tax liability determination.

6. Various procedural issues were raised, including compliance with notice requirements under Section 144, 142(1), 147, and 148, indicating discrepancies in the assessment process.

7. Allegations were made regarding non-compliance with Section 250(6) for passing a speaking order, suggesting a lack of procedural adherence by the authorities.

8. The appellant contended inadequate opportunity to present their case, alleging arbitrariness and a violation of natural justice principles in the hurried order passed by the CIT(A).

9. The legality of the order passed by the CIT(A) was questioned, highlighting discrepancies in the factual and circumstantial considerations leading to the decision.

In the final judgment, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing a fresh assessment by the Assessing Officer after providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to present all necessary documents and be heard. This decision aimed at ensuring justice and fair play in the assessment process, acknowledging the importance of proper representation and consideration of evidence in tax matters.

← Previous Next →