9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of articles sold by the assessee against which he had realized a sum of Rs. 39.47 lakhs - ITAT directed to directed to go into the issue and decide the same. - 929 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 10-5-2011 - SIKRI A. K., MEHTA M. L., JJ. JUDGMENT 1. In this appeal preferred by the Revenue, the following substantial questions of law are proposed on which we have heard the arguments at length at the stage of admission itself : (1) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 39,47,136 made by the Assessing Officer treating the sale of alleged personal effects as Income from undisclosed sources ? (2) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 Pcs E. Antique furniture which includes table, chairs, -centre table, chest, etc. 34 Pcs 4. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the aforesaid items could not be treated as personal effects and were in fact capital assets within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act and, therefore, refused to grant any exemption on the sale proceeds thereof from tax and included this amount for the purpose of tax. Another reason given by the Assessing Officer was that the assessee had failed to establish the identity of the items sold individually to each buyer or that these items have market value of Rs. 39.47 lakhs. According to him, since the assessee had not produced any documentary evidence in support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this manner he arrived at a finding that the sale proceeds were exempted under section 2(14) of the Act and not exigible to tax. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), vide the impugned judgment dated October 17, 2008, thereby dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. However, the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is only on the second aspect, namely, the genuineness of the items sold and the money realised. Since the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was silent on the first issue, namely, whether the items sold were personal effects entitled to exemption under section 2(14) of the Act or not, the Revenue moved an application under section 254(2) of the Act allegi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances of the case and in law , the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding the additions of Rs. 1,09,40,000 allegedly made by the Assessing Officer. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,09,40,000 includes the amount of Rs. 39.47 lakhs as well. No doubt no separate ground was raised by the Revenue dealing with the nature of articles sold by the assessee against which he had realized a sum of Rs. 39.47 lakhs. However, the ground relating to addition of Rs.1,09,40,000 was raised. In the ground it was specifically stated that whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer was correct in law . The aspect as to whether the articles sold were to be treated as personal effects or capital assets was specifically considered by the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
