RAHUL C. CHHEDA, MUMBAI V. ITO 16(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1235/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4511 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J SARAVANAN; RAJEEV GUBGOTRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1235 /MUM/201 6 : A.Y : 20 11 - 12 RAHUL C. CHHEDA E - 204, VRINDAVAN BUILDING, RAM BAUG LANE, OFF S.V. ROA D, BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI 400 092 . PAN : AEFPC0833C (APPELLANT) VS. ITO - 16(2)(1), MUMBAI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIMAL PUNMIYA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J. SARAVANAN & SHRI RAJEEV GUBGOTRA DATE OF HEARING : 15 / 03 /201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 /0 3 /2019 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU , VICE PRESIDENT : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 30 , MUMBAI DATED 21.12.2015 , PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 , WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2014 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2 ITA NO. 1235/MUM/2016 RAHUL C. CHHEDA 2. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE EXPLAINED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE MANNER OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF PROPERTY. IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED, THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IS WITH REGARD TO THE ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN DISALLOWING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED REPRESENT ATIVE ALSO FILED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL CLAIMING THAT THE BROKERAGE PAID OF ` 1 LAC FOR SALE OF PROPERTY ALSO WAS TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WOULD BE SATISFIED IF THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. EXPLAINING THE BACKGROUND, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE STATED THAT IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR COST OF ACQUISITION WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PUT UP INASMUCH AS THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS JUSTIFYING THE CLAIM WERE NOT APPROPRIATELY FILED. IN ANY CASE, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAS A GOOD CASE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. 4. THE LD. DR APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS NO OBJECTION FOR REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION AFRESH WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR COST OF ACQUISITION AS WELL AS FOR THE BROKERAGE PAID . CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID, WE SET - ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT( A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION AFRESH. NEEDLESS TO MENTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THEREAFTER SHALL PASS AN ORDER AFRESH, AS PER LAW. 3 ITA NO. 1235/MUM/2016 RAHUL C. CHHEDA 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH MARCH, 2019. SD/ - SD/ - ( RAM LAL NEGI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( G.S. PANNU ) VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATE : 15 TH MARCH , 201 9 *SSL* C OPY TO : 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4) THE CIT CONCERNED 5) THE D.R, D BENCH, MUMBAI 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T .A.T, MUMBAI