TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred to as "the Act"), arising out of the assessment order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the AO") under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 4 days in filing this appeal before us. The assessee has filed a condonation application supported by an affidavit. Having considered the same, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee before us in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 36 read as under: "1. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as well as in law, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....884/32, Village Morda, Tehsil Dudu for Rs 50,00,000; and Rs 3,91,433 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, being the excess of the stamp duty value of Rs 53,91,433 for the same Morda land over the consideration paid. 5. The learned CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. He deleted the addition of Rs 55,03,660 by allowing telescoping of the Morda purchase against the sale consideration of the Saipur land, upheld the capital gain on the strength of the report of the Tehsildar, and upheld the addition of Rs 3,91,433 on the view that the section taxes the excess of the stamp duty value over the payment made and not the character of the asset. No appeal by the Revenue against the deletion is on record. 6. The learned Authorised Representative....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., being the date of transfer. 9. No grievance of want of opportunity survives. The show cause notice dated 15.12.2017 called upon the Assessee to explain why the property should not be treated as a capital asset "as per the Tehsildar's report obtained u/s 133(6) of Act", and the AO has recorded that she furnished evidence only of the cost of acquisition and made no submission on the points raised. We may also notice that the written submission before the learned CIT(A) described the land sold as situated in Village Morda, which is in fact the land she purchased, so that the issue was decided on a submission that did not address the correct property. What is wanting is something different, namely, verification of the determinative fact it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no capital asset was transferred at all, a claim under section 54B of the Act arising only if that case fails. The primary facts on which it rests are recorded in the assessment order itself. In National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 229 ITR 383 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest possible terms." and that an assessee is not to be prevented from raising a question before the Tribunal for the first time so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item. In Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC), it was clarified that the bar on entertaining a claim otherwise than by a revised return operates on the assessing authority....