Case Law Details
Tristar Fashions Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Undisputedly, in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee did make a claim through submissions that since the asset sold was held for more than three years, the rate of tax as applicable in case of long term capital gain would apply in terms of section 112 of the Act. Both, the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the aforesaid claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not made such claim either in the original return of income or through a revised return of income as provided under section 139(5) of the Act. In our view, learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in agreeing with the decision of the Assessing Officer, thereby, not deciding assessee’s claim on merits. The settled legal position as emerges from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom.), the appellate authority certainly has power and jurisdiction to entertain a fresh claim of the assessee if the relevant fact for deciding such issue are available on record. Therefore, in our considered opinion, learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee without deciding it on merit. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the assessee’s claim on merits keeping in view the judicial precedents to be cited before him. Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
The captioned appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 8th April 2019, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–28, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2015–16.
2. When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. There is no application seeking adjournment either. Considering the nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose off the appeals ex–parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
