Smt. Sangeeta Krishnakumar Sadani, Kolkata V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Cirlce-1, Aurangabad

ITSSA 19/PUN/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Sangeeta Krishnakumar Sadani, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-12, Pune, concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The appeal was related to the disallowance of exemption under section 54GB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search operation where no incriminating material was found. The CIT(A) had enhanced the disallowance from Rs. 25,00,000 to Rs. 73,02,732 without a proper show cause notice, which the assessee contested. The Tribunal noted the procedural impropriety in the issuance of the enhancement notice and decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137316 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowedPartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2021
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Gurinder Singh Bawa [2016] 386 ITR 483 (Bom.), CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [2015] 374 ITR 645 (Bom.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Deduction for capital gain; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 153A; 274

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.(SS) A.No.19/PUN./2018 Assessment Year 2013-14 Smt. Sangeeta Krishnakumar Sadani, 281, S K Deb Road, Gour Apartment, 4 th Floor, Flat No.15/16, Kolkata. PIN – 700 048. PAN ALMPS2525F vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Smt. Deepa Khare For Revenue : Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 02.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 15.02.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A)-12, Pune’s order dated 21.06.2018, passed in case No.PN/CIT(A)-12/10834/2016-17, involving proceedings u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 1. “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the exemption u/s 54GB of capital gains of 2 IT(SS)A.No.19/PUN./2018 Smt. Sangeeta Krishnakumar Sadani, Kolkata. Rs.1,74,62,906/- can be subject matter of addition in proceedings u/s 153A arising out of search action when there was no incriminating material found during the course of search. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in making enhancement of disallowance of exemption u/s 54GB to Rs.73,02,732/- from Rs.25,00,000/- made by Id AO in absence of show cause notice u/s 251(2) of the Ac required by law. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in disallowing exemption u/s.54GB of Rs.73,02,732/- without appreciating the facts and circumstance of the case. 4. The appellant craves to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Learned counsel first of all submitted that the impugned assessment itself is not sustainable in law in absence of any incriminating material found/seized during the course of search herein dated 20.08.2014 in light of CIT vs. Gurinder Singh Bawa [2016] 386 ITR 483 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [2015] 374 ITR 645 (Bom.) We hardly see any merit in the assessee’s instant legal argument in light of the assessment 3 IT(SS)A.No.19/PUN./2018 Smt. Sangeeta Krishnakumar Sadani, Kolkata. discussion dated 29.12.2016 [para-5 page-2] that the Assessing Officer had indeed issued his show cause notice dated 08.11.2016 to her based on seized material only. We further clarify that this is assessment year 2013-14 followed by the search action in issue dated 20.08.2014 thereby making it an instance of an “abated” assessment only as per sec.153A(1) 2 nd proviso. We thus reject the assessee’s instant first and foremost legal argument. 4. Next comes the assessee’s second substantive ground on merits involving enhancement of sec.54GB disallowance from Rs.25,00,000/- made in the course of assessment to Rs.73,02,732/- in the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion reading as under : “18.2. I have considered the materials placed before me. Brief facts are that the appellant sold a property for Rs.2,50,00,000/- on 22.05.2012. The property was purchased on 18.08.2000. The appellant calculated capital gain of Rs.1,84,62,906/- on the said transaction. The appellant claimed exemption u/s 54(1) on reinvestment towards new residential property 1 year prior to date of transferred at Gour Aprtment, P S Lake Town, Kolkata of Rs.10,00,000/- and balance Rs.1,74,62,906/- was claimed as exempt u/s 54GB on 4 IT(SS)A.No.19/PUN./2018 Smt. Sangeeta Krishnakumar Sadani, Kolkata. account of investment in shares of newly incorporated manufacturing company Aarogyam Packaging Solutions Pvt Ltd (hereinafter APSPL). The AO during the assessment proceedings found out that the appellant had received back Rs.25,00,000/- from APSPL during the year under consideration. The AO disallowed the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- from the exemption claimed u/s 54GB and added back to the total income of the appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the investment made by the appellant was Rs.1,93,50,000/- if Rs.25,00,000/- withdrawn by the appellant was deducted, then eligible investment came to Rs.1,68,50,000/- out of which the company had made investment in fixed assets of Rs.1,52,55,879/-. The appellant contended that the AO should have allowed exemption of Rs.1,52,55,879/- and balance Rs.22,07,027/- (i.e. Rs.1,74,62,906 - Rs.1,52,55,879/-) should have been added to the total income instead of Rs.25,00,000/- added by the AO. I have considered the submissions filed by the appellant. The appellant claimed exemption u/s 54GB to the extent of Rs.1,74,62,906/-, which was the investment made in the shares of newly incorporated company APSPL. As per the provision of section 54GB, the capital gain exemption is limited to the 5 IT(SS)A.No.19/PUN./2018 Smt. Sangeeta Krishnakumar Sadani, Kolkata. proportion of the amount invested in equity shares of an eligible company to the total sale consideration of the capital asset. As per the fact on record the total consideration on sale of the original asset is Rs.2,50,00,000/- and the amount invested in subscription of equity shares which was utilized for purchase of new asset within one year is only Rs.1,51,11,615. Therefore, the eligible exemption is Rs.1,11,60,123/-, whereas the appellant claimed exemption of Rs.1,74,62,906/- Hence, there was an excess claim of deduction of Rs.73,02,732/- made by the appellant. Vide Order Sheet Noting dated 15.06.2018 the AR of the appellant was asked to show cause why this amount of Rs.73,02,732/- should not be disallowed and income should not be enhanced. In response to the show cause the appellant submitted that the amount utilized for purchase of new assets were Rs.2,95,30,128/- and not Rs.1,51,11,615/-. However in the assessment order the figures were mentioned as Rs.1,51,11,615/- and not Rs.2,95,30,128/- and even if it were so, the appellant had not disputed the amount in appeal and therefore hard to believe. Therefore, ground raised by the appellant is dismissed and exemption claimed u/s 54GB of Rs.73,02,732/- is hereby disallowed. Income of the appellant is hereby enhanced by 6 IT(SS)A.No.19/PUN./2018 Smt. Sangeeta Krishnakumar Sadani, Kolkata. Rs.73,02,732/-. For computational purpose income of appellant would increase by 48,02,732/- (i.e. Excess claim of 54GB of Rs.73,02,732/- minus amount already disallowed by the AO of Rs.25,00,000/-}. The appellant, therefore, furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent of excess claim of deduction u/s 54GB. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Issue notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Ground raised by the appellant is hereby dismissed with enhancement of income.” 5. It emerges during the course of hearing in light of vehement rival submissions of both the parties that the CIT(A) had issued his enhancement notice on 15.06.2018 which also turns out to be his last date of hearing in the lower appellate proceedings. The same amounts to a clear cut of violation of principles of natural justice in our considered opinion since the latter’s main order itself followed thereafter on 21.06.2018. Faced with the situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant second substantive grievance of sec.54GB deduction claim back to Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law preferably within three 7 IT(SS)A.No.19/PUN./2018 Smt. Sangeeta Krishnakumar Sadani, Kolkata. effective opportunities of hearing. It is further made clear that the assessee only shall bear the entire onus of filing all the necessary details relating to his impugned sec.54GB deduction claim in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 6. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us during the course of hearing. 7. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 15.02.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 15 th February, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. CIT(A) concerned. 4. The CIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches Pune.