9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 846 - AT - Income TaxCapital gain from sale of agriculture land was taxable in the assessment year under consideration i.e., A.Y. 2008-09 or the A.Y. 2009-10 - Admission of admission evidence - HELD THAT - In the present case, it appears that the bank statement now furnished by the assessee showing that the amount of ₹ 21,03,125/- vide Cheque no. 10951 was credited in the account of the assessee on 01/10/2008 was neither before the A.O. who passed the assessment order ex parte nor before the Ld. CIT(A). It is also not clear as to whether the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court now relied by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, by considering the totality of the facts, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the A.O. to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard and by considering the documents now furnished by the assessee before this Bench of the Tribunal. Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment under section 147 2. Assessment of HUF property in individual hands 3. Addition of long-term capital gain 4. Indexed cost of acquisition of land 5. Admission of additional ground regarding the taxability of capital gain 1. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147: The appeal challenged the confirmation of the action of reopening the assessment under section 147 by the A.O. The A.O. initiated proceedings due to the sale of land by the assessee and co-owners to M/s. Zodiac Housing And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The A.O. framed the assessment ex parte, considering the income of ?22,67,610 as taxable long-term capital gain. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the A.O. and confirmed the Fair Market Value of the property as of 01/04/1981. The Tribunal set aside the issue back to the A.O. for fresh adjudication, considering the documents furnished by the assessee and providing a reasonable opportunity for a hearing. 2. Assessment of HUF Property in Individual Hands: The appeal contested the assessment of HUF property in the individual hands of the assessee. The grounds raised questioned the correctness of this action. However, the details of the decision and arguments on this issue were not explicitly discussed in the judgment. 3. Addition of Long-term Capital Gain: The appeal disputed the addition of ?22,67,610 as long-term capital gain. The A.O. made this addition due to the sale of land by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld this addition, and the Tribunal did not provide further details on the arguments or reasoning regarding this specific issue. 4. Indexed Cost of Acquisition of Land: The appeal raised concerns about the indexed cost of acquisition of land, claiming ?1,42,825 against the allowed amount of ?8,318. The grounds challenged the correctness of this valuation. However, the judgment did not delve into the specifics of this issue beyond mentioning the tax effect. 5. Admission of Additional Ground Regarding Taxability of Capital Gain: The additional ground pertained to the taxability of capital gain from the sale of agricultural land in AY 2008-09 instead of AY 2009-10. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground, considering it a legal issue essential to the case. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee argued based on bank statements and a judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court, emphasizing that the transaction was for AY 2009-10. The Ld. DR opposed, citing the execution of the sale deed and receipt of payment in AY 2008-09. The Tribunal set aside this issue to the A.O. for reevaluation based on new evidence presented. In conclusion, the judgment addressed various issues related to the assessment, including the reopening of assessment, capital gain addition, indexed cost of acquisition, and the admission of an additional ground. The Tribunal provided detailed analysis and decisions on certain issues while remanding others back to the A.O. for further consideration based on fresh evidence and legal arguments presented during the appeal.
|
