M.R. Kondal Reddy, Hyd, Hyderabad V. Addl.CIT, Range-9, Hyderabad

ITA 594/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3253 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIVEDITA BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 54F; 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I .T.A. NO. 594/HYD/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 MR. M.R. KONDAL REDDY HYDERABAD PAN: ADQPM 5900 L VS. THE ADDL. CIT RANGE 9 HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI A.V. RAGHU RAM RESPONDENT BY: SMT. NIVEDITA BISWAS O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA DATED 31.01.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AS W ELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE REWORKING OUT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE WORKING OUT M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 4,66,597/- AS AGAINST THE COST OF ACQUISITION WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AT R S. 7,89,658/- WHICH INCLUDES COST OF ACQUISITION, REGISTRATION CHARGES AND FURTHER IMPROVEMENT. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 54F BY ADOPTING THE COST OF ASSET AT RS. 27,36,700 AS AGAINST RS. 39,31,860 CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESS EE MADE FURTHER INVESTMENT IN THAT PROPERTY AFTER ACQUISITION AND THEREFORE, OUGHT O HAVE TAKEN FURTH ER INVESTMENT INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE WORKING OUT THE EXEMPTION U/S. 54F. 6. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE CERTIFICA TE DATED 14.09.2009 ISSUED BY THE ARCHITECT WAS NOT ADMISSIB LE I.T.A. NO. 594/HYD/2011 MR. M.R. KONDAL REDDY =================== 2 EVIDENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. 7. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATIO N THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14.09.2009 ISSUED BY THE ARCHITEC T WITH REGARD TO IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PROPERTY AS THE SAME WAS IN SUPPORT OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 11,95,160/-. 8. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE CERTIFICA TE DATED 14.09.2009 ISSUED BY THE ARCHITECT CONSTITUTE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE SAME WAS ONLY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE WHICH WAS ALREADY MADE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. 9. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE CERTI FICATE DATED 14.09.2009 ISSUED BY THE ARCHITECT IS SUPPORT ING EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, CANNOT IGNORE SUCH VITA L EVIDENCE WHILE ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION WITH REGARD TO CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE L EVIED INTEREST U/S. 234B & C OF THE IT ACT AS THE CASE DO ES NOT WARRANT LEVY OF INTEREST. 11. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE I NITIATED PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT ON THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RAISED GROUND NO. 3 BEF ORE THE CIT(A) WHICH WAS NOT ADJUDICATED. HENCE, HE PRAYED THAT T HE ISSUE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO CONSIDER THE ENTIRE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL AFRESH. THE LEARNED DR HAS NO SERIOUS OBJECTION FOR SETTING ASI DE THE ENTIRE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. WE ARE COMPLETELY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THIS GROUND AS G ROUND NO. 5 BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH WAS NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE CIT(A). HENCE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT A SPEAKING ONE. ACCORDINGLY, WE I.T.A. NO. 594/HYD/2011 MR. M.R. KONDAL REDDY =================== 3 SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND T HE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR MAKING DE NOVO ORDER, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JUNE, 2011. SD/ - (G.C. GUPTA) VICE PRESIDENT SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 22 ND JUNE, 2011 TPRAO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. MR. M.R. KONDAL REDDY, C/O. M/S. B. NARSING RAO & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, PLOT NO. 554, ROAD NO. 92, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD-96. 2. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE 9, HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA 4. THE CIT-VI, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR A BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD