Rajendra Singh Bakshi, Bareilly V. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly

ITA 302/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2074 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.302/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH BAKSHI, PROP. M/S GHUNGHAT SLIMMING CENTRE 48-A, MODEL TOWN, BAREILLY. PAN:ADJPB2175P VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), BAREILLY. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 29/09/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09/10/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 27/03/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 012-13. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED I N NOT SETTING OFF THE LOSS FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS.153751/- OUT OF THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAINS AND THEREBY CHARGING THE TAX @ 20% ON ENTIRE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 2. THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THE LAW AND THE ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED AFTER KEEPING INTO THE MIND THE PROVISIONS OF CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF OF LOSSES WHILE THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF CARRIED FORWA RD OF LOSS, IT WAS ONLY THE QUESTION OF SET OFF OF LOSS D URING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ONLY. 3. THAT THE CHARGE OF THE TAX AND INTEREST AMOUNTIN G RS.19660/- IS ILLEGAL. 2 4. THAT THE WHOLE ORDERS ARE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, AG AINST FACTS, LAW AND NATURAL JUSTICE AND HAVE BEEN PASSED WITHOU T GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE A PPOINTED DATE OF HEARING IN SPITE OF NOTICE AND HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE T HROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT ON PAGE NO. 4 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A), HE HAS WORKED OUT THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2 ,94,597/- AFTER SETTING OFF LOSS FROM HOUSE PROPERTY RS.1.50 LAC AS AGAINST THE LOSS UNDER THAT HEAD CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,53,751/-. HENCE, G ROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE THAT LOSS FROM INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS NOT SET OFF IS NOT CORRECT AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN OTHER GROUNDS ALSO BECAUSE THESE ARE INTER CONNECTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, W E DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARO DIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED:09/10/2015 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW A SSTT. REGISTRAR