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
|
