9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n not allowing application under r. 46A for production of additional evidence. (ii) That on the facts and law of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred by taking compensation amount of land at Rs. 54,48,390 instead of Rs. 27,24,195 as determined by Addl. District Judge vide orders dt. 16th Sept., 2003." 3. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee owned agricultural land at village Mansoorwala Dona. The said land was acquired by the Punjab Urban Development Authority (In short 'PUDA') and assessee was awarded compensation. Since the agricultural land acquired by the PUDA was situated within the municipal limits of Kapurthala, the compensation of Rs. 54,48,390 was liable to long-term capital gains. As the assessee had not filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de for admission of fresh evidence under r. 46A in the form of a copy of order dt. 16th Sept., 2003 of the Addl. District Judge, Kapurthala, stating therein that the assessee had only l/6th share in the compensation received and the amount of compensation given to the assessee was at Rs. 27,24,195. The assessee also submitted that the said order of the Addl. District Judge, Kapurthala, has been upheld by the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court. Thus, it was pleaded that the amount of compensation be taken at Rs. 27,24,195 instead of Rs. 54,48,390 taken by the AO. It was submitted before the CIT(A) that the assessment was completed under s. 144 and the assessee was never assessed to income-tax. The only source of his income was from agricult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther submitted that the written submissions filed along with the request for admission of additional evidence was referred to the AO for his remand report. The remand report submitted by the AO has been referred by the CIT(A) at p. 5 of the impugned order. In the said remand report, the AO had merely mentioned that it was not clear whether the assessee had accepted the judgment of the Addl. District Judge and of the High Court or the matter was still pending with the Supreme Court. Thus, having obtained the remand report, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in declining to admit fresh evidence. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the CIT(A) may be set aside and the AO should be directed to compute the long-te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appear to be correct for the reason that the assessee is an agriculturist. He was not assessed to tax in the past. Therefore, he was not well versed with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, the learned CIT(A) ought to have admitted the fresh evidence moreso when the same was referred to the AO and his remand report was obtained. The interest of substantial justice should not be allowed to suffer merely on mere technicalities of the matter. It is precisely for these reasons that powers are vested with the CIT(A) for admission of fresh evidence under r. 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. The powers of CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of AO. Thus, this was a fit case for exercise of such power moreso when th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gains by taking cost of acquisition at Rs. 2,000 per Maria as on 1st April, 1981. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that at the time of completing the ex parte assessment, the AO computed the long-term capital gains by taking fair market value of the land at Rs. 114 per Maria as on 1st April, 1981. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) by relying on his order dt. 31st Oct., 2006 in another case held that the long-term capital gains may be computed by taking the cost of acquisition as on 1st April, 1981 at Rs. 2,000 per Maria. Both the Revenue and the assessee are aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A). Hence, these cross-appeals before this Bench. 10. Both the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded by the Tribunal in para 5 of the order are as under : '5. I have heard both the parties and considered the rival submissions with reference to facts, evidence and material on record. From the facts discussed above, it is obvious that the land in question was jointly purchased along with other two brothers in 1966. In both the cases, the Revenue has accepted the cost at Rs. 2000 per Maria for the purpose of computing long-term capital gains. The facts of the present case are absolutely identical to the facts of the cases of other two owners. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification in adopting different cost for the purpose of computing long-term capital gains in the case of the assessee. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
