V.K.Eswaran, Coimbatore V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1184/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 118421714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A ARJUN RAJ
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ) .. I.T.A. NO. 1184/MDS/12 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 V.K. ESWARAN, 28/11, PERIAYA THOTTAM, VEERA KERALAM, COIMBATORE 641 007. PAN : AADPE 5280 H (APPELLANT) V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD VI(2), CHENNAI 600 034. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.ARJUN RAJ, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GURU B ASHYAM, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.12 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 .11.12 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED CORR ECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-IX CHENNAI DATED 27.03.12 PASSE D IN ITA NO.186/08-09 ARISING OUT OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECT ION143(3) OF THE ITA NO. 1184/MDS/2012 2 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT). THE RELEV ANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2006-07. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE ( INDIVIDUAL) INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING PETROL, DIESEL AND OTHER CONSUMABLES HAD FILED HIS RETURN ON 31 ST OCTOBER, 2006 DECLARING INCOME OF ` 1,13,430/- WITH AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 30 LAKHS. IN SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, HE PRODUCED PATTA, PASS BOOK, ADANGAL FROM VAO AND COPY OF SALE DEED REGARDING CAPITAL GAINS A RISING FROM SALE PROCEEDS OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. AS THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 31.12.08 SUGGESTS, PER ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION FOR CAPITAL GAINS. SO, HE RECOMPUTED THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME AND RE-WORKE D CAPITAL GAINS AS ` 1,03,25,100/- BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE IND EXED COST OF ACQUISITION. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT(A), WHO HAS DISMISSED THE CASE WITHOUT ADVERTING TO MER ITS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DILIGENT IN P ROSECUTING HIS CASE, AS SUFFICIENT ADJOURNMENTS HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED. SO, HE ITA NO. 1184/MDS/2012 3 TURNED DOWN ASSESSEES PLEA OF ADJOURNMENT AND DISM ISSED THE APPEAL. 3.1. IT IS IN THIS BACK DROP THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED. 4. BEFORE US, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASS ESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS AN D VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE C IT(A) HAVE ADVERTED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS EVIDEN CE OF THE ASSESSEE AVAILABLE ON RECORD WITH REFERENCE TO COMPUTATION O F CAPITAL GAINS. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL; NOT ON MERITS, BUT BECAUSE OF T HE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRAYED FOR ADJOURNMENT, WHICH WAS DECL INED. TO BUTTRESS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, RELIANCE HAS ALS O BEEN PLACED ON THE CASE LAWS OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRINATH BULIYAN REFINERY VS. CIT IN 255 ITR 215, A ND HONBLE AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT THEMIS BIOSY N LTD. VS. JCIT IN 74 ITD 339(AHD.) AND PRAYED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPEAL. 5. THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS PLACED RELIA NCE ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND PRAYED FOR UPHOLDING THE SA ME. ITA NO. 1184/MDS/2012 4 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH PART IES AT LENGTH AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE A.O AND CIT(A) AS WELL AS CASE LAWS CITED. IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD PURCHASED 20 ACRES OF LAND IN THE YEAR 1971 FOR ` 1,30,000/- AND SOLD 10.35 ACRES IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSME NT YEAR. THEREAFTER, IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE CLAIM ED EXEMPTION FOR CAPITAL GAINS AND PLACED ON RECORD PATTA, PASS BOOK , ADANGAL FROM VAO AND COPY OF SALE DEED. WE FIND THAT THE A.O. H AS SUMMARILY REJECTED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WITHOUT EVEN AD VERTING TO THE CONTENTS OF EVIDENCE PRODUCED ON RECORD BY THE ASSE SSEE. IN APPEAL AS WELL, THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO REJECTED THE ASSESSEE S PRAYER FOR ADJOURNMENT MERELY BY HOLDING THAT SUFFICIENT NUMB ER OF OPPORTUNITIES HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED; STILL THER E WAS NO ASSISTANCE FROM ASSESSEES PART. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DENIED SUBSTANTIAL JUSTI CE I.E NEITHER THE A.O. NOR THE CIT(A) HAVE DISCUSSED THE ASSESSEES S UBMISSIONS IN DETAIL AND PASSED ORDER ON MERITS. THEREFORE, IN O UR OPINION, NEITHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR THE APPELLATE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE, ARE IN ITA NO. 1184/MDS/2012 5 ACCORDANCE WITH WELL SETTLED LAW THAT A CASE HAS TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) A FTER CONSIDERING IN DETAIL THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE THAT THE ISSUE IN HAND BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO WILL DECIDED IT AFRESH IN AC CORDANCE WITH LAW ON MERITS AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO LEAD FURTHER EV IDENCE ALSO, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM RAISED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE STANDS ACC EPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON THURSDAY , THE 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R CHENNAI, DATED THE 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. K S SUNDARAM. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE ITA NO. 1184/MDS/2012 6