9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed as many as 11 grounds of appeal. However the learned AR at the time of hearing submitted that he has been instructed by the assessee not to press ground Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8 & 9, raised in the grounds of appeals. Accordingly we dismiss the same as not pressed. 3. Likewise the issues raised by the assessee in ground Nos. 10 and 11 are either consequential or premature to decide. Therefore we dismiss the same as infructuous. 4. Thus the effective issues, remaining for adjudication are stated in ground Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 which are reproduced as under: 3. Ld.CIT(A) erred in law in and on facts confirming the view taken by AO that Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 62,46,790/- on sale of Vejalput land was taxable in full in A.Y. 2006/07 only. Ld.CIT(A) ought to have granted spread over of capital gains u/s.45(3) of the Act as shown by the appellant. 4. Without prejudice to the above, ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming capital contributing of Rs. 62,46,790/- by AO in place of Rs. 17,57,000/- in the partnership firm. Ld.CIT(A) ought to have quashed such computation contrary to the provisions of sec. 45(3) of the Act. 5. Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts confirming addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the other the learned DR fairly agreed that the appeals filed by the assessee do not require any separate adjudication in the circumstances narrated by the learned AR for the assessee. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available. From the preceding discussion, we note that there is no dispute qua the amount of capital gain earned by the assessee along with other parties. As per the assessee the amount of capital gain was taxable in the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 whereas the revenue had taxed the entire amount of capital gain in the assessment year 2006-07 as contended by the learned AR. 8.1 At the time of hearing, it was pointed out by the learned AR that the assessee has settled his dispute for the assessment year 2006-07 under VSV scheme 2020. For this purpose, the learned AR has filed form 3 issued by the Income Tax Department showing the settlement of the dispute under VSV scheme 2020. 8.2 As the dispute relating to the year under consideration has been settled under VSV scheme 2020, we hold that no separate adjudication is required. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the assessee as infructu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudication as per the provisions of law. 15. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that the ITAT in the identical facts and circumstances in the case of other partners has remanded back the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the provisions of law. The relevant extract of the order in ITA No.3447/Ahd/2016 for AY 2008-09 &Ors. Is reproduced below:- "14. We have carefully considered rivals submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below2. The taxability of undisclosed income detected in the course of search in the case of partnership firm where the assessee is a partner is in question. We shall first take a look into the second proposition raised on behalf of the assessee. On behalf of the assessee, it is sought to be contended that the alleged undisclosed income has already been included in the taxable income of the partnership firm in the course of settlement proceedings and thus the same income cannot be taxed again in hands of the partners. We find ourselves in complete agreement, in principle, with the said proposition raised on behalf of the assessee-pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue neutral exercise any further. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the issue is set aside and remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication of the issue afresh in terms of directions noted above in accordance with law." 16. Respectfully following the same, we are inclined to remand this matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the provisions of law. Hence, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 17. In the result, Assessee's appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 18. Coming to following appeals filed by the different assessee. Sr.No. Appeal No. A.Y Name of the assessee 1. ITA No.1371/Ahd/2016 2008-09 Smt. Bhavanben M. Patel 2. 1366/Ahd/2016 2007-08 Shri Atit Maheshbhai Patel 3. IT(SS)A No.242/Ahd/2016 2008-09 Shri Atit Maheshbhai Patel 4. ITA No.1368/Ahd/2016 2007-08 Shri Maheshbhai S. Patel 5. IT(SS)A No.244/Ahd/2016 2008-09 Shri Maheshbhai S. Patel 6. ITA No.1363/Ahd/2016 2007-08 Shri Shantilal Prabhudas Patel 19. At the outset we note that similar grounds were raised by the Assessee in ITA No.1370/Ahd/2016 (Bhavnaben M. Patel) cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 54B of the Act on account of investment made in another agricultural land amounting to Rs. 1,38,22,000.00. However, the AO made the observations during the assessment proceedings as detailed under: i. The assessee is not eligible for exemption under section 54B of the Act as the land in respect of which the capital gain was generated was not used for the agricultural operations either by the assessee or his parents. Accordingly, the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 54B of the Act was denied. ii. The index cost of improvement claimed by the assessee was not available to the assessee as the assessee failed to file the documentary evidence in support of his claim. 26. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who allowed the exemption to the assessee under section 54B of the Act but denied the benefit for the index cost of improvement claimed by the assessee. 27. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 28. The learned AR before us contended that the assessee has made investment in the agricultural land for an amount of Rs. 1,38,22,000 against the sale proceeds received by him from the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
