Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: form 3cd :: VAT Audit :: VAT RATES :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: due date for vat payment :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: cpt :: empanelment
 
 
From the Courts »
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21

Shri Hardev Singh, B-3, Gujranwala Town, Part-I, New Delhi Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(4), Room No.303, F Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi.
March, 17th 2015
ITA 2881 & 2882/D/2010
Asstt.Year: 2002-03 and 2001-02

                IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                       DELHI BENCH `C' NEW DELHI


        BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                              AND
          SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER


                      I.T.A.No.2881/Del/2010 & 2882/Del/2010
                           Asstt.Year: 2002-03 and 2001-02

Shri Hardev Singh,                   vs   Income Tax Officer,
B-3, Gujranwala Town,                     Ward 20(4), Room No.303,
Part-I, New Delhi.                         F Block, Vikas Bhawan,
(PAN: ANZPS9184M)                          New Delhi.
 (Appellant)                                  (Respondent)

                               Appellant by: Shri Kapil Goel, Adv.
                              Respondent by : Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
                                    Date of Hearing: 11.3.2015
                              Date of pronouncement:
                                    ORDER


PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

       The above captioned appeals have been filed against the order of CIT(A)-

XXII, New Delhi          dated 31.03.2010 passed in Appeal No. 196/08-09 and

197/08-09 for AY 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively. At the very outset, ld.

Counsel for the assessee submitted that in both the appeals, the assessee does

not want to press ground no. 1, 2, 3 and 4, therefore, these grounds in both the

appeals are dismissed as not pressed. The remaining ground no. 5 in ITA No.

2882/Del/2010 reads as under:-






                                           1
ITA 2881 & 2882/D/2010
Asstt.Year: 2002-03 and 2001-02

               "5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the
         case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting the
         addition of Rs.38,20,072 as made by ld. AO on account of
         alleged capital gains, where revenue has accepted CIT(A)
         (Amritsar)'s favourable order in cases of other co-owners and
         buyers."
2.     The remaining ground no. 5 in ITA No. 2881/Del/2010 reads as under:-


               "5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the
         case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting the
         addition of Rs.3,66,666 as made by ld.AO on account of
         alleged capital gains, where revenue has accepted CIT(A)-
         (Amritsar)'s favourable order in cases of other co-owners and
         buyers."
3.     We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the

relevant material placed on record. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that

the CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs.38,20,072 and Rs. 3,66,666

as made by ld. AO in AY 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively on account of

alleged capital gains, specially when the revenue has accepted the order of the

CIT(A) (Amritsar) favourable to the other co-owners and buyers, wherein

similar additions have been found to be unsustainable as the additions made by

the AO in the case of Amritsar Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. on the similar set of facts

and allegation has been upheld. Ld. Counsel has also drawn our attention

towards paper book page no. 79 to 99 and submitted that when the substantial

additions have been made in the case of respective company viz. Amritsar Rice

Mills Ltd., then addition on similar ground was held to be not sustainable in the

case of other co-owners and buyers and the assessee is also one of the co-

owners, therefore, the additions made in the hands of assessee are also not
                                        2
ITA 2881 & 2882/D/2010
Asstt.Year: 2002-03 and 2001-02

sustainable in the light of decision of CIT (A) Amritsar in the case of other co-

owners and buyers.


4.     Replying to the above, ld. DR submitted that despite several efforts, he is

unable to get final report from CIT(A) Amritsar about the cases of other co-

owners and buyers and the department has no serious objection if the sole issue

involved in both the appeals is restored to the file of AO for verification and

examination in accordance with the orders of CIT(A), Amritsar in the case of

other co-owners and buyers.


5.     Ld. Counsel of the assessee placing rejoinder on above submission of the

revenue submitted that the AO cannot be allowed to take a second round of

proceedings merely because the department is unable to find out final position

of the cases of the other co-owners and buyers who are being assessed at

Amritsar. However, subsequently, ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that if

it is found just and proper, then the sole issue involved in both the appeals may

be restored to the file of AO for limited purpose only.


6.     On consideration of above submissions of both the sides and on vigilant

perusal of material placed on record before us, we are of the considered view

that while the CIT(A), Amritsar has deleted the addition in the cases of other

co-owners and buyers on the similar set of fact and circumstances then

obviously in a peculiar situation when it is undisputed that the assessee is also

one of the co-owners, then similar additions, deleted by the CIT(A), Amritsar
                                        3
ITA 2881 & 2882/D/2010
Asstt.Year: 2002-03 and 2001-02

in the case of other co-owners and buyers, cannot be sustained in the case of

present appellant assessee.


7.    We may further point out that despite several opportunities, which have

been afforded to the revenue, ld. DR is unable to get a final report and status of

the case of other co-owners and buyers. Under these facts and circumstances,

when both the parties are agreed that the issue may be restored to the file of AO

for verification and examination in the light of decision of CIT(A)-Amritsar in

the cases of other co-owners and buyers, then we find it just and proper to

restore the issue to the file of AO. Hence, sole issue in both the appeals is

restored to the file of AO for verification and examination in the manner as

indicated above affording due opportunity of hearing for the assessee for this

limited purpose only. Accordingly, ground no.5 in both the appeals is deemed

to be allowed for statistical purposes.





8.       In the result, both the appeals are deemed to be partly allowed for

statistical purposes.


       Order pronounced in the open court on 16.3.2015.

       Sd/-                                            Sd/-

(S. V. MEHROTRA)                                  (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

DT. 16th MARCH 2015
`GS'


                                          4
ITA 2881 & 2882/D/2010
Asstt.Year: 2002-03 and 2001-02




Copy forwarded to:-

   1.   Appellant
   2.   Respondent
   3.   C.I.T.(A)
   4.   C.I.T.
   5.   DR
                                      By Order




                                      Asstt.Registrar




                                  5

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
SEO Company Search Engine Optimization Company US SEO Local SEO Company Website SEO Company Alabama SEO Company Alaska SEO Company Arizona SEO Company Arkansas SEO Company California SEO Company Colorado SEO Company Connecticut SEO Company Delawa

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions