9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1239 - AT - Income TaxAdmission of additional evidence by CIT-A - Addition of LTCG - CIT(A) admitted additional evidence in support of contention that the investments were not liquidated by the assessee during the year under consideration but the same were liquidated/withdrawn by the assessee in the succeeding assessment year - CIT(A) admitting fresh evidence in contravention to Rule 46A of I.T. Rules - Whether CIT(A) has erred in not remanding the case back to the AO for examining fresh evidence which is in the form of Bank Statement of assessee ? - HELD THAT - Evidently, before admitting such additional evidence in support of the assessee s case, the ld. CIT(A) has not referred the matter back to the ld. Assessing Officer for his comments and has not sought remand report from the ld. AO before adjudicating the appeal in favour of the assessee. We observe that the due process as prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules has not been followed in the instant facts. Thus looking into the facts of the case, in the interest of justice, the matter is being restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for examining the case of the assessee afresh after examining the claim of the assessee in the light of the supporting documents to the effect as to which year the investments have been liquidated by the assessee i.e. whether or not the same sere liquidated by the assessee during the year under consideration. Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues involved:
The appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad, in proceeding u/s. 250 for the assessment year 2015-16. Issue 1 - Admission of Fresh Evidence: The Department contended that the Ld CIT(A) erred in admitting fresh evidence in contravention to Rule 46A of I.T. Rules without remanding the case back to the AO for examining the bank statement of the assessee for FY 2015-16. The Department sought to alter, add, modify, or delete any or all grounds of appeal. Issue 2 - Treatment of Capital Gains: The assessee sold property in the assessment year 2014-15 and claimed deduction u/s. 54(1) of the Act by investing in the capital gains account scheme. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 4.5 crores as long term capital gain for the assessment year 2015-16, as the assessee allegedly withdrew the entire amount from the capital gain account scheme without utilizing it for the specified purpose. Issue 3 - Decision on Appeal: The ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee's submission that the investments were not liquidated during the assessment year 2015-16 but in the subsequent year 2016-17. The CIT(A) observed that the appellant had made capital gain FDs and filed returns for A.Y. 2016-17, offering income from capital gain of Rs. 4.5 crores in that year. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted. Separate Judgement - Cross Objection: The assessee filed Cross Objection challenging the re-assessment proceedings, contending that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was bad in law. The assessee sought to quash the consequent reassessment passed by the AO. However, during the hearing, the counsel for the assessee decided not to press the cross objections, leading to their dismissal. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as not pressed. The matter related to the treatment of capital gains was resolved in favor of the assessee, with the addition made by the AO being deleted by the ld. CIT(A) based on the timing of the liquidation of investments.
|
