Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai

Michael Dominic Colaco, Vasai vs Jcit Rg 4, Thane on 22 December, 2017

           IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
                  MUMBAI BENCH "B", MUMBAI

     BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
       SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                               ITA No.6860/M/2014
                             Assessment Year: 2010-11

       Shri Michael Dominic Colaco,         Jt. Commissioner of Income
       Manickpur,                           Tax, Range-4,
       Navpada,                         Vs. Ashar IT Park, 6th Floor,
       Near Cricket Ground,                 Road No.16-Z, Ambika Nagar
       Vasai, Dist Thane-401 202            Wagle Indl. Estate,
       PAN: ABDPC7633F                      Thane-400 604
            (Appellant)                        (Respondent)

     Present for:
     Assessee by                 : Shri Ramesh Prabhu, A.R.
     Revenue by                  : Shri T.A. Khan, D.R.

     Date of Hearing             : 06.12.2017
     Date of Pronouncement       : 22.12.2017

                                  ORDER

Per D.T. GARASIA, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11.08.2014 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2010-11.

2. The short facts of the case as under:

The assessee sold agricultural land for a sum of Rs.3,23,00,000/- and received the last installment of the land amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- on 27.08.08. The assessee has handed over the possession of land. The assessee's land suitated at village Pelhar, Vasai was located 8 kms. beyond the local limits of the 2 ITA No.6860/M/2014 Shri Michael Dominic Colaco Municipal Corporation. Therefore, it was not a capital asset as per section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, it is not subject to capital gains. However, Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) did not accept the same.

3. Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed some additional evidence but the additional evidence was not considered by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the revised return was not filed. Therefore, he did not admit the appeal. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. We find that assessee has filed the additional grounds before us that were not admitted by Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that additional ground cannot be admitted during the course of assessment proceedings. But in our opinion the additional grounds can be admitted at any stage of time. We find that in case of "CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd." (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The power of the Tribunal in dealing with the appeal is thus expressed in widest possible terms.

5. Respectfully following the same, we admit the claim of the assessee and matter is restored to AO to decide it afresh, as per law.

Shri Michael Dominic Colaco

6. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.12.2017.

         Sd/-                                                    Sd/-
   (Rajesh Kumar)                                          (D.T. Garasia)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                       JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 22.12.2017.
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.



Copy to: The Appellant
        The Respondent
        The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
        The CIT (A) Concerned, Mumbai
        The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy//                             [




                                                  By Order



                                 Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.