Umesh Chand Bhargava, Meerut V. ITO, Ward-2(4), Meerut

ITA 1211/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7313 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 50C; 54EC

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI SMC BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1211/DEL/2018 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11] UMESH CHAND BHARGAVA, VS. ITO, WARD-2(4) , 507/3, MANGAL PANDEY NAGAR, MEERUT MEERUT, UTTAR PRADESH (PAN: AAYPB1366Q) [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY: SHRI ROHIT AGGARWAL, CA REVENUE BY : SH. PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR . DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS], MEERUT DATED 14.12.2017 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE AO AND THE CIT(A), HAVE PROCEEDED ON INCORRECT FACTS AND HAVE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS 1/3 RD AND NOT 1/4 TH AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THAT THE EXEMPTION / DEDUCTION U/S. 54EC HAS BEEN SHORT ALLOWED AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN COMPUTING / CONFIRMING THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN BONDS AMOUNTING TO RS. 24,00,000/- U/S. 54EC WITH REFERENCE TO STAMP DUTY VALUATION WHILE IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED WITH REFERENCE TO NET CONSIDERATION RECEIVED. 2 3. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN ASSESSING / CONFIRMING THE AMOUNT OF TAXABLE CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 21,16,450/- AS AGAINST CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 5,22,975/- AS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THAT ALTERNATIVELY BUT WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE TAXABLE CAPITAL GAIN AS COMPUTED / CONFIRMED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BELOW AT RS. 21,16,450/- AS AGAINST CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 5,22,975/- IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 5. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN COMPUTING / CONFIRMING THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BASIS OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION U/S. 50C INSTEAD OF ACTUAL CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS SETTLED IN COURT PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN THE THREE VENDORS AND THEIR OTHER BROTHER VINOD PRAKASH BHARGAVA IN COURSE OF CIVIL SUIT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTIES WHICH WAS AN ANCESTRAL PROPERTY AND WAS A SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION. SECTION 50C IN SUBSTANCE EVEN DID NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 6. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT CORRECTLY AND THE SEVERAL OBSERVATIONS AS MADE AND INFERENCES AS DRAWN ARE GROSSLY MISCONCEIVED AND EVEN FACTUALLY INCORRECT. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT GIVEN SUFFI CIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM. HE R EQUESTED THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WH ICH HE HAS FILED 3 IN THE SHAPE OF 02 PAPER BOOKS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ONE IS CONTAINING PAGES 1-78 AND ANOTHER IS CONTAINING PAGES 1-75. HE NCE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE ASIDE T O THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AS PAW LAW, AFTER GIVING AD EQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS P ASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE OR DERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH THE 02 PAPER BOOKS ON E IS CONTAINING PAGES 1-78 IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED THE PHOT OCOPY OF SUBMISSION DATED 06.12.2017 AS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS; PHOTOCOPY OF SUBMISSIONS DATED 12.8.2017 AS FILED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS; PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 27.8.2009 AS FIELD BEFORE TH E AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) AND PHOTOCOPY OF CERTIFICATE OF CAPITAL GAIN BOND OF NHAI ALONGWITH ITS RECEIPTS AS FILED BEFORE THE AO AS WE LL AS LD. CIT(A) AND THE SECOND PAPER BOOK WHICH IS CONTAINING PAGES 1-75 HAVING THE COPIES OF VARIOUS JUDGMENTS/ DECISION OF THE TR IBUNAL AND HONBLE HIGH COURTS. I FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT REVENUE AU THORITIES HAVE NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE F OR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN POSSESSION OF ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOKS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. THEREFORE, IN THE I NTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, AFTER C ONSIDERING ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND CASE LAWS TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DURING THE 4 HEARING AND PRODUCE ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES I N HIS POSSESSION TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 03.02.2020. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:03-02-2020 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) ASST. REGISTRAR, 5. DR ITAT, NEW DELHI