Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad V. Sri Satyanarayana Hanumanthu, Hyderabad

ITA 1192/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 119222514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JEEVAN LAL L
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 54B; 54F; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1192/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE 12(1), HYDERABAD. VS. SRI SATYANARAYANA HANUMANTHU, HYDERABAD. PAN: AAKPH9207J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI JEEVAN LAL .L ASSESSEE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 28-11-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-11-2013 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF CIT(A)-II, HYDERABAD DATED 08-05-2013. NOTICE OF HE ARING TO THE PARTY WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON ASSESSEE, BUT, NONE APPEAR ED WHEN THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. AFTER HEARING THE LE ARNED DR, THE APPEAL IS DECIDED EXPARTE RESPONDENT. 2. THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REFERENCE TO CL AIM OF INVESTMENTS U/S 54B AND 54F. ASSESSEE SOLD LONG TER M CAPITAL ASSET I.E. AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE NET SALE CONSIDERATI ON WORKED OUT TO RS. 3.90 CRORES. ASSESSEE PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND O N 25-05-2009 FOR RS. 66 LAKHS AND BALANCE OF RS. 3.34 CRORES OUT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WAS KEPT IN CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME AND CLAIMED 2 ITA NO. 1192/HYD/2013 SRI SATYANARAYANA HANUMANTHU EXEMPTION U/S 54B AND 54F. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW T HAT THESE CLAIMS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND ALLOWED ONLY EXEMPTION U /S 54F AT RS. 3.07 CRORES AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 26,27,480/ -. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENT IONS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 54B & 54F ARE NOT MUTUAL LY EXCLUSIVE AND ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION. THE DETAILED OR DER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IS AS UNDER: 4.2 THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THE COMPUTATION SHE ET OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WHEREIN IT IS SHOWN THAT AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTIONS UJS.54B & 54F THERE IS NO TAXABLE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. HE HAS FURTHER RELIED ON T HE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION: (A) SMT. ASHA GEORGE VS. INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1), THRISSUR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA (2013) (30 TAXMANN 334) (B) DY.CIT, CIRCLE-L, AGRA VS. TEJ SINGH (ITAT, AG RA BENCH) (25 TAXMANN 573) (C) CIT VS. ROHTAS, HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA (167 TAXMANN 233) (D) VENKATA RAMANA UMA REDDY VS.DCIT (2013) (32 TAXMANN 157) HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL. 5. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE CASES RELIED ON BY THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. THE ARGUMENT OF THE AO T HAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54B AND 54F ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE HAS BEEN EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE VAR IOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS. IT IS NOTED THAT THE EXEMPTION PROVISIONS UJS.54 HAVE NOT EXPRESSLY STATED THAT EITHER OF THE SECTIONS CAN BE AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEES. AN D ALL THE DECISIONS CITED ABOVE INDICATE THAT THE JUD ICIAL AUTHORITIES HAVE ACCEPTED IN PRINCIPLE THAT THE EXEMPTION UJS.54B AND 54F BOTH CAN BE CLAIMED TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL, IN THE LATEST DECISION IN THE CASE OF SRI VENKATA RAMANA UMA REDD Y HAS HELD THAT SECTIONS 54 AND 54F ARE INDEPENDENT OF EA CH OTHER AND OPERATE IN RESPECT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS A RISING OUT OF TRANSFER OF DISTINCT AND SEPARATE LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSETS. 3 ITA NO. 1192/HYD/2013 SRI SATYANARAYANA HANUMANTHU 5.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HELD THA T THE EXEMPTION US/ 54B AND 54F ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIV E AND THEY ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER AND THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER BOTH THE SECTIONS AND ACCORDINGLY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE AND AL LOW THE EXEMPTION AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT. 4. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AS IT WA S RIGHTLY HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER BOTH SECTIO N 54B & 54F OF IT ACT AND THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND INDEPEN DENT OF EACH OTHER. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL F ORUMS INCLUDING THAT OF COORDINATE BENCH, HYDERABAD IN THE CASE SRI VEN KATA RAMAN UMA REDDY VS. DCIT [2013] 32 TAXMANN 157 (HYD.) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN REVENUES APPEAL AND ACC ORDINGLY, GROUNDS ARE REJECTED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B. RAMAKOTAIA H) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOU NTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. KV 4 ITA NO. 1192/HYD/2013 SRI SATYANARAYANA HANUMANTHU COPY TO:- 1) ACIT, CIRCLE 12(1), HYDERABAD. 2) SRI SATYANARAYANA HANUMANTHU, 8-2-326/6, H.NO. 2 04, ROAD NO. 3, AVENUE NO. 7, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 500 034. 3) CIT(A)-II, HYDERABAD 4) CIT-I, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A .T., HYDERABAD.