Smt. Kamla Devi, Panchkula V. ITO, Panchkula

ITA 1224/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 122421514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: NANCY HOODA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 2(14)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1224/CHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SMT.KAMLA DEVI, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, W/O LATE SH.AJMER SINGH, WARD-3, VPO NADA SAHIB, PANCHKULA. PANCHKULA. PAN: ALOPD3678A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT.NANCY HOODA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K.SAINI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.09.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA DAT ED 22.03.2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD, AGAINST FACTS & LAW. 2. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY TAXED THE TOTAL ENHANCED COMPENSATION (INCLUDING INTEREST ON COMPENSATION) AMOUNTING TO RS.1192568/- AS LONG TERN CAPITAL GAIN BEING RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF URBAN AGRICULTURAL LAND USED FOR THE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE SINCE INHERITANCE AND IS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE FOR THE PERIOD MORE THAN 2 PROCEEDING YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ACQUISITION BY HUDA WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 10(3&) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2 3. THE APPELLANT WAS NOT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE TO THE KANUNGO OF LAO BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DURING THE PROCEEDINGS. THIS IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS WRONGLY TAXED THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION AWARDED BY LD. ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE PANCHKULA HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT & ALSO IGNORED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 155(16) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. AS PER THE REVENUE RECORD, THE ABOVE STATED LAND WAS CULTIVATED & PRODUCE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT AT THE TIME OF ACQUISITION. BUT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED KHASRA GIRDAWARI ATTESTED BY PATWARI OF VILLAGE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT ATTESTED BY THE TEHSILDAR. 6. THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY TREATED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED IN VILLAGE NADA AS CAPITAL ASSET AS PER DEFINITION GIVEN IN SECTION 2(14) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTE R A DELAY OF 538 DAYS. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OU T THAT APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FURNISHED ON RECORD. FURTHER THE DECLARATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO FILED ON RECOR D. 4. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TH AT THE DELAY IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A POOR WIDOW LADY AND WAS AN ILLITERATE PERSON HAVING NO K NOWLEDGE OF THE TAX MATTERS. AN OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE LEARNED A .R. FOR THE ASSESSEE BY THE BENCH TO BRING ON RECORD THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL LATE BY 538 DAYS. DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNI TIES ALLOWED TO THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE, NO SUITABLE EXPLANAT ION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT TO PLEAD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A POOR LADY. 3 5. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THA T NO SPECIFIC REASON HAS BEEN FORWARDED BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR T HE ASSESSEE IN RELATING TO UN-EXPLAINABLE DELAY IN FILING THE PRES ENT APPEAL LATE BY 538 DAYS. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE RECIPIENT OF COMPENSATION OF ACQUISITION OF LAND AND HAD FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.3 .2007 BY 4.7.2007. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T (APPEALS) AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TIME AND THE PRESENT DELAY BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. HENCE, THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MERITS TO BE DISMISSED ON THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICAT ION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL AFTER A DELAY OF 538 DAYS WHICH READS AS UNDER: YOU ARE KINDLY REQUESTED TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL, AS ASSESSEE IS A POOR WIDOW LADY AND SHE WAS UNAWARE ABOUT THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THIS CASE WHICH OTHER VILLAGERS HAVE FILLED IN 2010. SHE WAS UNABLE TO C OLLECT THE FEES FOR FILING THE CASE IN FRONT OF HON'BLE IT AT THATS WHY SHE DELAYED THE APPEAL. SO KINDLY EXCUS E FOR THE DELAY OF 538 DAYS FROM THE LAST DUE DATE. WE K INDLY REQUEST TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL FOR THE HEARING BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A DECLARATION UNDER WHICH IT IS CLAIMED AS UNDER: DECLARATION I KAMLA DEVI W/O LT. SH.AJMER SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILL. NADA SAHIB, PANCHKULA & ALSO PAN NO. HOLDER NO.ALOPD3678A, DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM & DECLARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE DEPONENT IS A POOR WIDOW LADY. 4 2. THAT THE DEPONENT IS AN ILLITERATE PERSON SO DUE TO AWARENESS OR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE SO THE DEPONENT HAS FILED THE CASE AFTER DUE DATE/TIME. 3. THAT DUE TO SOLTAGE OF MONEY THE DEPONENT WAS NOT FILED THE SAME CASE DURING DUE TIME PERIOD I.E. AFTER 538 DAYS. 4. THAT THE DEPONENT WILL ABIDE BY ALL THE RULES & REGULATIONS FOR THE SAME PURPOSES. DEPONENT VERIFICATION:- VERIFIED THAT ALL THE CONTENTS ARE TRUE & CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE & BELIEF & NO PART OF I T IS FALSE & NOTHING HAS BEEN CONCEALED THEREIN. PANCHKULA. DT.:- 14/03/2012 8. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID APPLICATION MO VED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WE FIND THE PLEA OF THE ASSESS EE WAS THAT SHE WAS A POOR WIDOW LADY AND WAS UNAWARE ABOUT THE PROCEEDIN GS. THE ASSESSEE THOUGH FURNISHED DECLARATION THAT SHE WAS A POOR WI DOW LADY BUT HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE PAU CITY OF FUNDS IN HER HANDS, ESPECIALLY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHERE THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN THE CAPTIONED ASSESS MENT YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACQUISITION OF HER AGRICULTURAL LAND. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO N OT ESTABLISHED HER CASE OF NON AVAILABILITY OF THE FEES FOR FILING THE PRES ENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, ESPECIALLY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE TH E ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE COMPENSATION ON THE ACQUISITION OF AGR ICULTURAL LAND. THE SECOND PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE WAS UNAWARE AB OUT THE PROCEEDINGS, WAS AN ILLITERATE PERSON AND THERE WAS A LACK OF KN OWLEDGE AND HENCE THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME, HAS NO MERIT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR O N 4.7.2007 AND WAS REPRESENTED BY AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW I.E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO THE CIT (APPEAL S). WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH HER CASE OF EXPLAI NING THE DELAY IN 5 FURNISHING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY 538 DA YS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAIN TAINABLE AND IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH