Shri. Sandeep B. Shetty, Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 6(3)(1), Bangalore

MA 70/BANG/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7130 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2020
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJEET SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMASUBRAMANYAM
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P NO.70/BANG/2020 (IN ITA NO.1070/BANG/2019) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 16 SHRI SANDEEP B SHETTY, NO.13, SNS CHAMBERS, 274, SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 080. PAN : AACPS 9801 M VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S RAMASUBRAMANYAM, C.A RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJEET SINGH, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 07-08-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02-09-2020 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION HAS BEEN FILED BY A SSESSEE ALLEGING FOLLOWING TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKES APPARENT ON RECORD. 2. IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS (TRIBUNAL) DATED 6/3/2020 FOLLOWING ISSUES HAVE BEEN ALLEGED BY ASSESSEE TO B E MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. I. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL BE PLEASED TO CLARIFY THAT GROUND NO. 2 REGARDING LAND COST STANDS FULLY ALLOWED AND THE DI RECTION GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH 21 OF THE ORDER IS WITHDRAWN. II. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND REGARDING COST REGARDING THE COST INCURRED UP TO THE COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION IS AL LOWED AND THE PAGE 2 OF 5 M.P NO.70/BANG/2020 MATTER IS REMANDED ONLY FOR THE VERIFICATION OF ACT UAL AMOUNT INCURRED. 3. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL ALLOWED GROUND 1 TO 2 IN PARAGRAPH 18 AND DIRECTED AO TO COMPUTE C APITAL GAINS CONSIDERING THE SCHEMES IN CONSONANCE TO DECISIONS OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. ACCORDING TO LD. AR THERE IS SOME AMBIGUITY. 4. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE HEARIN G, BOTH SIDES SUGGESTED THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED BACK TO F ILES OF THE LD.AO TO VERIFY ACTUAL AMOUNT INCURRED FOR CONSTR UCTION OF NEW HOUSE. 5. LD. SR. DR SUGGESTED THAT, IN PARA 18, IF GROUND NO. 2 IS REPLACED BY ISSUE 2, FIRST MISTAKE ALLEGED BY ASSE SEE WOULD GET RESOLVED. HE ALSO SUGGESTED THAT IN PARA 21 OF IMP UGNED ORDER THIS TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO VERIFY, MONIES INVESTED IN VACANT PLOT BY ASSESSEE. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THA T, IF COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE VERIFIED, GRIE VANCE OF ASSESSEE WOULD RESOLVE THE ISSUE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE, HAVING RE GARD TO IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 6/3/2020. 7. IT IS NOTED THAT, THIS TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE SUMMARI ZED ISSUES CONTESTED, WHICH IS REFERRED TO AT PAGE 8 IN PARAG RAPH 15 OF IMPUGNED ORDER. 8. ON A CAREFUL READING OF IMPUGNED ORDER, WE NOTE THAT, PARAGRAPH 16,17,18 DISCUSSES BENEFIT AVAILABLE TO A SSESSEE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 54F ON THE SAID FACTS. PAGE 3 OF 5 M.P NO.70/BANG/2020 9. HOWEVER IN CONCLUSION, IT HAS BEEN RECORDED THAT , GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL HAS BEEN ALLOWED W HEREAS REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 10. WE NOTE THAT THIS HAS CAUSED SAME CONFUSION AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS AMENDED TO READ AS UNDER:- ACCORDINGLY ISSUE NO.1 AND 2 REFERRED IN PARA 15 STANDS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESEE AND APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 11. NOW COMING TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WHICH IS C OST OF CONSTRUCTION INCURRED BY ASSESSEE FOR PURPOSES OF C LAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 54F. WE NOTE THAT IN PARAGRAPH 21 IN ADVERTENTLY THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED FOR VERIFICATION BY LD A). ACCORDINGLY PARA 21 IS NOW READ AS UNDER :- IT IS OBSERVED THAT AS RIGHTLY ARGUED BY LD. SR. D.R THAT, ONE HAS TO VERIFY THE MANNER IN WHICH ASSESSEE INVESTED IN VACANT PLOT AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION INCURRED, HAVING REGARD TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAMCHANDRA RAO (SUPRA). AS, THAT THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY LD.AO, IN OUR VIEW IT IS APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO LD.AO. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THAT ASSESSEE SHALL BE GRANTED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING REPRESENTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY, MISC. PETITION IS DISPOSED OFF AS IND ICATED ABOVE. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE I S DISPOSED OFF AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND SEPTEMBER 2020 SD/- SD/- (B. R. BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 2 ND SEPTEMBER 2020. /VMS/ PAGE 4 OF 5 M.P NO.70/BANG/2020 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE PAGE 5 OF 5 M.P NO.70/BANG/2020 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON ON DRAGON SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR -08-2020 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER -08-2020 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. -08-2020 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS -09-2020 SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON -09-2020 SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE -09-2020 SR.PS 8. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON -- SR.PS 9. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK -09-2020 SR.PS 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 11. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 12. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 13. DRAFT DICTATION SHEETS ARE ATTACHED NO SR.PS