Sujatha Atchutani , Hyderabad V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

MA 19/Hyd/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8936 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2021
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIVA KUMAR KOTAMARAJU
• Keywords: Capital Gains
• Section: 254(2); 54

Judgement Text

MA NO 19 OF 2020 SUJATHA ATCHUTANI HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A NO.19/HYD/2020 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1208/HYD/2018) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SMT. SUJATHA ATCHUTANI HYDERABAD PAN:ABBPA8757E VS. DY. CIT CIRCLE 6(1) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI SHIVA KUMAR KOTAMARAJU REVENUE BY : SRI ROHIT MUJUMDAR -DR DATE OF HEARING: 19/03/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23/03/2021 ORDER PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS M.A IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 254(2) OF THE I.T. ACT SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE ALLEGED MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSEES AP PEAL, THE ISSUE WAS OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISING OUT OF SALE OF TWO PROP ERTIES I.E. ONE PROPERTY AT GUNTUR AND ANOTHER AT HYDERABAD. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD REM ANDED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO BUT HAS MENTIONED ONLY ONE PROPERTY AT GUNTUR AND INADVERTENTLY FAILED TO MENTION THE PROP ERTY AT HYDERABAD. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR REMAN DING OF THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-COMPUTATION OF T HE CAPITAL GAINS FOR THE SALE OF PROPERTY AT HYDERABAD AS WELL. 2. THE LEARNED DR WAS ALSO HEARD. MA NO 19 OF 2020 SUJATHA ATCHUTANI HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 2 3. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND RE CORD, WE FIND THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE R ECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.6 OF TH E ORDER IS MODIFIED AS UNDER: 6. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND MATE RIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT CIT (A) HAS ACCEPTED TH E CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF GUNTUR PROPERTY TO BE LTCG. HAVING HELD SO, HE OUGHT TO HAVE CORRECTLY COMPUTED THE COST OF ACQ UISITION WITH THE VALUE OF LAND AS WELL AS BUILDING THEREON. SINCE THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AS CO ST OF ACQUISITION, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMAND TH E ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO RECOMPUTE TH E CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF GUNTUR PROPERTY BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VALUE OF THE LAND AS WELL AS THE BUILDING THEREON AND EXEMPTION U/S 54 SHALL BE ALLOWED ON SU CH LTCG. SIMILARLY, THE COMPUTATION OF LTCG AND EXEMPT ION THEREFROM ON SALE OF HYDERABAD PROPERTY SHALL ALSO BE CONSIDERED BY THE AO DENOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. 4. M.A. IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, M.A FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD MARCH, 2021. SD/- SD/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 23 RD MARCH, 2021. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 MRS.SUJATHA ATCHUTANI, NO.8-2-293/82/A/743 ROAD N O.38, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD 500033 2 DY.CIT, CIRCLE 6(1) HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-6 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT -6 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER