ITO 17(3)(4), MUMBAI V. VIJAY K. SAKPAL, MUMBAI

ITA 5505/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 550519914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 29-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JINESH MEHTA
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, I, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI D.K.AGARWAL (JM) AND B. RAMAKOTAIAH ( A.M ) ITA NO.5505/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4), ROOM NO.615, 6 TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI-400012 SHRI VIJAY K.SAKPAL, 117, VERSOVA SHITAL, VASWANI MARG, SEVEN BUNGALOW, ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI-400058 PAN: AFZPS1764B APPELLANT V/S RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING : 29.9.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.9.2011 APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JINESH MEHTA O R D E R PER D.K.AGARWAL (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.4.2010 PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE READ S AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A O RECOMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS ALLOWING THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.28,53,245/- AS PART OF COST OF ACQUISITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE FLAT WAS MORTGAGED FOR A LOAN AND THE REPAYMENT OF SUC H LOAN CANNOT BE A DEDUCTION TOWARDS COST OF ACQUISI TION OF PROPERTY. ITA NO.5505/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) 2 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE AO AFTER ACCEPTING THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF RS.1, 44,000/- AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES RS.1,359/- TOTALING T O RS.1,45,359/- AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME HAS ADDED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS RS.9, 87,990/- AS AGAINST RS.36,904/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TAX EFFECT ON THE ABOVE DISPUTED AMOUNT IS LESS THAN T HE MONETARY LIMIT OF RS.3,00,000/- FIXED BY THE CBDT. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT DISPUTE ON THE SAID FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. 4 THAT BEING SO AND IN TERMS THE RECENT CBDT INSTRU CTION NO. 3 OF 2011 DATED 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2011 REPORTED IN (2011) 332 ITR 1 (STATUTES) AND THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T V. MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) (2009) 318 ITR 148(BOM), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE REVISED MONETARY LIMIT IN THE CIRCULAR DATED MAY 15, 2008 WOULD BE APPLICABLE FOR ALL PENDING APPEALS AND ALSO THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF TH E CO- ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE APPEAL AND ACC ORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.5505/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISM ISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH SEPT, 2011. SD SD (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (D .K.AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 29 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 SRL: COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. DR CONCERNED BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI