ITO, Ward - 2(2), Siliguri V. Smt. Rukmani Devi Singhal, Siliguri

ITA 1340/KOL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2476 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2009
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JYOTI KUMARI
• Keywords: Tax effect; Capital Gains

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI B.R.MITTAL, J.M. AND SRI C.D.RAO, A.M) I.T.A. NO. 1340/KOL/2009 ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07 ITO, WARD 2(2), SILIGURI -VS- RUKMANI DEVI SINGHAL (PAN AWEPS 7614 Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. JYOT I KUMARI. RESPONDENT BY : SRI RAVI TUL SIYAN O R D E R PER SHRI C.D.RAO, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE WHILE SUBMITTING THE COMPUTATION OF TAX INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL WHICH IS BELOW RS.2 LAKHS, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE C.B.D.TS CIRCULAR , THE REVENUES APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED D.R. THOUGH RELI ED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES COULD NOT CONTRADICT THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, IT IS OBSER VED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS REGARDING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.8,56,500. THE TAX EFFECT AS COMPUTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NOT CONTRADICTED BY THE D.R. IS AS UNDER : CALCULATION OF TAX ON THE ADDITION OF RS.8,57,5 00/- RS. TAX ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON RS.8,57,500 @ 20% 1,71,500/- ADD : SURCHARGE @ 10% 17,150/- 2 1,88,6 50/- ADD : EDUCATION CESS @ 2% 3,773/- TOTAL TAX : 1,92,423/- KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR F.NO. 279/MISC.-64 /05-ITJ DATED 24 TH OCTOBER,2005 AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS CAMCO COLOUR CO. [254 ITR 565 (BOM)] AND THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS INDIAN OIL CORPORAT ION LTD. [267 ITR 272 (SC)]. 6. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSISTENTLY TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE APPEAL CONTRARY TO THE CIRCULAR BY THE C.B.D.T. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS NOT ADMITTED AND IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.7.2010 SD/- SD/- (B.R.MITTAL) (C.D.RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 20.7.2010 COPY TO :- 1. ITO, WARD 2(2), SILIGURI. 2. RUKMANI DEVI SINGHAL, W/O LATE JUGAL KISHORE SINGHA L, C/O JIWAN JYOTI, HILL CART ROAD, SILIGURI. 3. C.I.T.(A), SILIGURI. 4. C.I.T., SILIGURI. 5. D.R., ITAT, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER BCD DY REGISTRAR, I.T.AT., K OLKATA