Sayanna Kurma Yadala , Nizamabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nizamabad

ITA 1139/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2684 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 234B; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES SMC, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1139/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SAYANNA KURMA YADALA, NIZAMABAD [PAN: BLWPK3023M] VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY, DR DATE OF HEARING : 24-11-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-11-2020 O R D E R THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE AY.2006-07, DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)1, HYDERABAD, DATED 18-03-2019. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY.2006- 07 BY DUE DATE. BASED ON THE INFORMATION OBTAINED DURIN G SURVEY OPERATION IN THE CASE OF M/S.LAXMIPRIYA BUILDE RS & DEVELOPERS ON 20-02-2008, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS. THEREFORE, A NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT [ACT] WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH , THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY.2006-0 7 ON 22- 12-2009 ADMITTING INCOME OF RS.25,000/-. ITA NO. 1139/HYD/2019 :- 2 -: 3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 R.W.S.14 3(3) OF THE ACT, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.17 LAKHS AS SALE CONSIDERATION ON SALE OF 22 ACRES OF L AND AS AGAINST RS.75,000/- SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE MATTER TRAVELLED UPTO ITAT AND THE ITAT SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO SHARE WITH THE ASSE SSEE THE STATEMENTS OF ALL THE FARMERS AND DO THE ASSESSMENT DENOVO. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, ALL TH E STATEMENTS OF FARMERS WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMI NE SOME OF THE PARTIES. THEREAFTER, THE AO RE-AFFIRMED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.17 LAKHS FROM THE SALE OF 22 ACRES O F LAND AND NOT RS.75,000/-, WHICH IS THE VALUE SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED, AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT TH E LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.16,70,180/- TO TAX. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(A), BUT THE CIT(A) REPRODUCED THE ASSESSEES SUBM ISSIONS AT LENGTH, AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO JUST IFY WHY THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR SHOULD NOT BE TAKE N FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED TH E APPEAL. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS. THE LEARNED ITA NO. 1139/HYD/2019 :- 3 -: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT DECIDE THE ISSUE PLACED BEFORE HER. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN MAT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS NOT RS.17 LAKHS AND WAS ONLY RS.75,000/-. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT RECEIVE RS.17 LAKHS AND THE SAME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS THE CONSIDERATIO N RECEIVED AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OU GHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE ACTUAL AMOUNT RECEIVED IS SHOWN IN THE REG ISTERED DOCUMENT. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A AND 234B OF TH E I.T.ACT. 7. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME O F HEARING. 6. THE CASE IS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 24-11-2020 THR OUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AND BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD. 7. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.17 LA KHS AS SALE CONSIDERATION OR RS.75,000/- AS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED, THE CIT(A) HAS GONE ON A WRONG ASSUMPTION THAT TH E ISSUE IN THE APPEAL IS REGARDING THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB- REGISTRAR FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR RE-CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 8. LD.DR WAS ALSO HEARD. 9. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DEALT WITH THE ISS UE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS GIVEN A FINDING, WHIC H IS ITA NO. 1139/HYD/2019 :- 4 -: IRRELEVANT FOR THE ISSUE BEFORE HER. THEREFORE, I DEE M IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-CONSIDER THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH NOVEMBER, 2020 SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 24-11-2020 TNMM ITA NO. 1139/HYD/2019 :- 5 -: COPY TO : 1. SHRI SAYANNA KURMA YADALA, H.NO.3-8, BORGAON (P) , NIZAMABAD. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD. 3. CIT(APPEALS)-1, HYDERABAD. 4. PR.CIT-5, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.