CEDRIC DSOUZA, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3115/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0870 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS BEENA SANTOSH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3115/M/2015 (AY 2010 - 2011) CEDRIC DSOUZA, 14B, NOOTAN NAGAR TURNER RD, BANDRA WEST, MUMBAI 400050. / VS. ITO - 19(3)(1), MATRU MANDIR, MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AAEPD4057G ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA / RESPONDENT BY : MRS. BEENA SANTOSH / DATE OF HEARING : 10.04.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 .04.2017 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 22.5.2015 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 32, MUMBAI DATED 2.3.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011. IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 1. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS. 2. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS A FLAT AT PALI HILLS IN SOMERSET CHS AND THE SAME WAS SOLD FOR A SUM OF RS. 2.25 CRS ON 6.10.2009. ASSESSEE IS A 50% SHAREHOLDER IN THE SAID FLAT AND THE OTHER 50% IS OWNED BY HIS MOTHER MRS. MARIE KHALKDINA. ASSESSEE INVESTED THE GAINS IN A FLAT. THERE IS A CONFUSION IN THE MIND OF THE AO REGARDING THE DETAILS OF THE NEW ASSET AND THE EXTENT OF OWNERSHIP OF THE SAID NEW ASSET. 3. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, LD AR BROUGHT MY NOTICE CERTAIN MISTAKES COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE VALUE OF THE ASSET. LD AR SUBMITTED THAT A NEW FLAT WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE JOINTLY WITH HIS MOTHER FOR RS. 69,94,140/ - AGAINST THE CORRECT SUM OF RS. 90 LAKHS. SIMILARLY, ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO COMMITTED CERTAIN ERRORS WITH REGARD TO THE DETAILS OF NEW ASSET. OTHERWISE, 2 ASSESSEE OWNS TWO FLATS IN NATALIA CHS, ON WHICH ASSESSEE HAS 100% OWNERSHIP. FURTHER, ASSESSEE ALSO OWNED A FLAT IN PUNE AT GARE PROPER TIES REALTY. CONSIDERING THE ERRORS CREPT INTO THESE ORDERS FROM BOTH THE ASSETS, LD REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD REVISIT THE FILE OF THE AO FOR APPRECIATING THE SAID MISTAKE AND MAKING CORRECT COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTI ON U/S 54 OF THE ACT. I FIND MERIT IN THE SAID PROPOSITION AND PROCEED TO REMAND THE GROUND NO.1 TO THE FILE OF THE AO. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY. AO SHALL GRANT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE SET PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 6 T H APRIL, 2017. S D / - (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 26.04.2017 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI