Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 389 - AT - Income TaxRectification of order u/s 254(2) of the act – Held that:- Assessee contended that capital gains does not arise where the agreement is cancelled subsequently - the ITAT, in their order has merely held that the decisions relied upon by the applicant are not is a mistake in not considering the decision of this Tribunal without discussing the facts though brought to notice of the Hon'ble ITAT - this will amount to review of decision in the order - Under sec 254(2) only patent mistakes are liable to be rectified and not a review of the decision of the tribunal. The entire computation of capital gains in respect of the property under dispute in accordance with law and giving reasonable opportunity to the Assessee set aside - The AO was also specifically directed to consider allowability of relief u/s 54F - When recomputing the capital gains, no doubt the AO has to take into account all components including cost of acquisition, deduction u/s 54F and other related provisions for arriving at taxable capital gains – thus, any further rectification is not required in the order. The tribunal cannot decide whether profit on sale of land is exempt from capital gains on the ground the land is agricultural land, without first establishing that the land was in fact agricultural land - This factum does not appear to have been examined by lower authorities - While the Tribunal does not have the power for enhancement of assessment, it certainly has the power and in fact it is obliged to enquire into all aspects an allowance which is questioned before them – Relying upon Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Cochin Refineries Limited [1987 (1) TMI 9 - KERALA High Court] - it cannot be held that profit on sale is exempt from capital gains without first being certain that all the requirements for the provisions of the Act are satisfied - If the lower authorities have not considered one of the aspects required to be satisfied for allowance, the tribunal is well within rights to remand the matter to the files of the AO for fresh consideration in accordance with law - Decided against Assessee.
|