TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ft and settlement was not appropriate. The Tribunal was of the opinion that for the purpose of Section 49(1)(ii) of the Act, there was no difference between gift and settlement and that in the instant case, the settlement made with the assessee's brother could not attract capital gains on this count. There are no reasons as to how the Tribunal came to such a conclusion. We are unable to find any such reasoning in paragraph 15 of the impugned order. Therefore, the said finding is not supported by reasons and hence, not sustainable. Tribunal referred to the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Mr.Abdul Hameed Khan Mohammed [2016 (1) TMI 903 - ITAT CHENNAI] for the assessment year 2011-12. The Tribunal did not assign any reason as to how the said decision of the Coordinate Bench would apply to the assessee's case. Paragraph 14 of the impugned order is also devoid of reasons. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. Considering the fact that the year, in which, the search and seizure operations were conducted in the plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of those properties vide settlement deed dated 05.3.2010 in favour of his brother the said Mr.S.Rajarathnam, who also relinquished his 50% of the share in certain other properties by way of another settlement deed dated 05.3.2010 in favour of the assessee. The Assessing Officer found that the transaction of settlement executed by the assessee amounted to 'transfer' within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act, that it attracted the provisions of Section 45 of the Act thereby the liability to tax on capital gains arose and that the exemptions provided under Section 47 of the Act were not applicable. 5. Aggrieved by such an order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai-34 [for short, the CIT(A)] in ITA.No.99/2014-15. The appeal was allowed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 27.1.2016. As against the same, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal by a common order dated 15.3.2017 along with other appeals filed by the Revenue against the very same assessee, over which, we are not concerned in this appeal. 6. The question would be as to whether the arrangement between the respondent as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of other 55 properties. The Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee acquired new rights in 55 properties, which were not there prior to the so called settlement by parting away 50% of his share in 30 other properties, which share got vanished after the gift settlement. 9. Thus, the Assessing Officer held that there had been an exchange of properties between the assessee and his brother and such exchange was done by way of relinquishment of respective rights in the properties to suit their convenience. The Assessing Officer further held that such relinquishment was not an act of benevolence or charity, but as a result of acquisition of new property rights in 55 other properties by the assessee. The Assessing Officer concluded that all the ingredients required for invoking the provisions of Section 45 of the Act were found to be existing in the case of the assessee and that the transaction squarely fell under the said provision. 10. The Assessing Officer also took note of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rasiklal Maneklal [reported in 177 ITR 198] while deciding the issue as to why the transaction amounted to relinquish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the properties. Hence, the assessee submitted that the two laws namely the Indian Stamp Act and the Income Tax Act treated the transaction as a settlement and not otherwise. It was further contended that there was no relinquishment of right as mentioned by the Assessing Officer and there was no exchange of property, but the assessee distributed certain jointly held properties to his brother, who, in turn, got certain jointly held properties for him because of the settlement deed and not by a release deed or by a sale deed. Hence, the assessee contended that the transaction is a gift by his brother out of love and affection for comfortable living. 15. In support of his contention, the assessee referred to the decision of the Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT-II, Jalandhar Vs. Ashwani Chopra [ITA.No.353 of 2011 dated 10.1.2013] and other decisions including the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. R.Nagaraja Rao [ITA.No.3038 of 2005 dated 19.2.2012], the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation [reported in AIR 1976 SC 807]; the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Narang Dairy Products [reported in (1996) 219 ITR 478] and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rasiklal Maneklal. 21. The law laid down in various decisions cannot applied in the abstract, but needs to be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the cardinal principle is that law is applied to each and every case after considering the facts. Otherwise, it would tantamount to putting the 'cart before the horse'. Though the CIT(A) referred to the two decisions, no reasons were given as to how those two decisions would apply to the assessee's case. Thus, we hold the order of the CIT(A) to be an order devoid of reasons and a nullity. 22. The parties to the proceedings are entitled to know as to why the Authority or the Tribunal or the Court does not agree with their submissions. Thus, order without reasons is arbitrary and unreasonable and it would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, without assigning any reasons, without discussing about the transaction and without rendering any findings as to why, in the opinion of the CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
