2019 (2) TMI 50 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of capital gain - land sold by the assessee along with other society members - Held that - As the AO matched the facts of the instant case with those of Mr. P.S. Bhinder and Mr. R.V. Singh, the ld. AR was required to give status of the appeals in respect of them. In response, he submitted that the Tribunal has deleted similar additions in the case of those two persons. He, however, expressed his inability to produce copies of such orders passed by the Tribunal. It was fairly admitted by the ld. AR that the facts and circumstances of the instant appeal are similar to those of two persons named in the assessment order. Since copies of the Tribunal orders in the case of Mr. P.S. Bhinder and Mr. R.V. Singh have not been placed on record, though the AR admitted that the appeals have been decided by the Tribunal, we deem it fit to set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of AO. We order accordingly and direct him to decide this issue afresh in the light of the decision claimed to have been rendered by the Tribunal in similar facts in the case of Mr. P.S. Bhinder and Mr. R.V. Singh. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed an opportunity of hearing in such fresh proceedings.

Summary

Issues:
- Deletion of addition of ?1,19,32,338 under the head "Capital gains" by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of addition of ?1,19,32,338 under the head "Capital gains" by the Assessing Officer
The appeal filed by the Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of ?1,19,32,338 made by the Assessing Officer under the head "Capital gains" for the assessment year 2008-09. The facts revealed that the assessee, an Army Officer, received a sum of ?8,40,000 as his share from a cooperative housing society's land sale. The Assessing Officer computed income under "Capital gains" by deducting the cost of acquisition from the full value of consideration. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, except for the amount received in cash, based on a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Revenue contended that the judgment relied upon was for a different property, not the one sold by the assessee. The Tribunal found similarities in this case with two other individuals and decided to remit the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration in light of the decisions in those cases. The Tribunal ordered a re-examination of the issue, providing the assessee with a hearing opportunity in the fresh proceedings. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

This judgment highlights the importance of considering specific facts and legal precedents in tax matters. The Tribunal's decision to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for reevaluation based on similar cases demonstrates the need for consistency and thorough examination of relevant evidence in tax assessments. The assessee's right to a fair hearing and the significance of applicable legal principles in determining tax liabilities are key takeaways from this judgment.