| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3283 (Chd-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 250 Section 23
Where AO determined ALV of vacant property of assessee as per market rate and made additions, before CIT(A) assessee raised plea for first time that property was vacant because it was sealed by Municipal Authority(MCD) and was rented out after it got de-sealed, as CIT(A) was required to look into grounds taken by the assessee which were based on documentary evidence, matter was remanded back to CIT(A) for decision afresh.
|
Appeal (CIT(A) - Plea raised for first time before CIT(A) - Issue as regards determination of annual value of vacant property - Vacancy caused due to sealing of property by Municipality (MCD)
Sole issue involved in appeal was regarding determining ALV of one of property of the assessee which remained vacant during the period relating to the previous years, relevant to the assessment years under consideration. AO determined ALV of property as per market rate. On appeal before CIT(A), assessee produced order of High Court pertaining to civil suit in relation to property. Assessee contended that property was sealed by MCD and before it got de sealed, assessee was not able to rent out the property. CIT(A) did not consider plea of assessee raised before him and not before AO.Held: Even as per provisions of sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) of section 250, it was required of CIT(A) to look into grounds taken by the assessee which were based on documentary evidence in the shape of Court orders and adjudicate upon them so as to determine the correct tax liability of the assessee. In view of this, orders passed by CIT(A) without considering pleas taken by assessee were not sustainable in the eye of law. However, issue was required to be restored to the file of CIT(A) for decision afresh.
Followed:Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 157 Taxman 1 (SC) : 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1528 (SC), National Thermal Power Company Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) : 1998 TaxPub(DT) 342 (SC), CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2671 (Bom-HC), Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (Assessment) (2000) 245 ITR 84 (Guj) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1344 (Guj-HC), Godavari Sugar Mills v. CIT (1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom) : 1993 TaxPub(DT) 0430 (Bom-HC), JSW Holdings Ltd. v. DCIT [ITA No. 714/Mum/2015 for assessment year 2011-12 Order, dated 31-8-2017], Pandoo P. Naig v. ACIT [ITA No. 7089 (Mum) of 2011, decided on 24-6-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4261 (Mum-Trib) and Chandrashekhar J. Bahirwani v. Asstt. CIT [ITA No. 7810/M/2010 and 6599/M/2011 Order, dated 17-6-2015].
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|