SHRI KAILASH NARAYAN CHATURVEDI, Raisen V. THE ITO, Vidisha

ITA 14/IND/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5991 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 54B; 148; 54

Judgement Text

KAILASH NARAYAN CHATURVEDI - SMC ITA 14 OF 2015 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 14/IND/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 KAILASH NARAYAN CHATURVEDI, RAISEN PAN AFHPC 2226 G :: APPELLANT VS ITO-VIDISHA :: RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI ASHISH GOYAL AND SHRI N.D. PATWA RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 08.6.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08.6.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, BHOPAL, DATED 10.10.2014. 2. FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT AS PER INFORMATION AVA ILABLE ON RECORD REGARDING SALE OF PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.4 3,30,000/- AND THE FACT THAT NO INCOME-TAX RETURN HAS BEEN FILED BY HI M FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISS UED NOTICE U/S 148 TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE FILED RETURN ON 26.3.2013 DE CLARING INCOME OF KAILASH NARAYAN CHATURVEDI - SMC ITA 14 OF 2015 2 RS.1,55,220/- CONSISTING OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPE RTY AT RS.29,400/- AND INCOME FROM LEGAL PRACTICE AT RS.1,25,815/- SHO WN AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.42,92,080/- ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY SOLD FOR RS.43,40,000/- AND AFTER ALLOWING FOR INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.37,920/-. 3. MATTER CARRIED TO LD. CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASCERTAIN THE GUIDELINES AND CIRCLE RATES OF SIMILA R PROPERTIES SITUATED IN THE SAME AREA FROM CONCERNED REGISTRAR/SUB-REGISTRA R OFFICE TO ARRIVE AT CORRECT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AS ON 01. 4.1981 AND THEN COMPUTE ITS INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION FOR ASSESS ING TAXABLE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN ASSESSEES HANDS. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. BEFORE ME, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATE D THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT AGRICULTURAL LANDS OF 7 ACRES & 8 ACRES WERE ACQUIRED BY GRAND-FATHER & FATHER ON 25.8.1955 & 16.4.1973, RESPECTIVELY, OUT OF THEIR S AVINGS FROM SWEETS SHOP. ON DEATH OF FATHER, THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER EQUALLY. THEREFORE, THE PR OPERTY IS HUF PROPERTY AND NO ADDITION IN HANDS OF ASSESSEE IS CA LLED FOR. THIS KAILASH NARAYAN CHATURVEDI - SMC ITA 14 OF 2015 3 AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SOLD ON 19.3.2010 FOR RS.43,3 0,000/-. ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEES WIFE HA S BEEN PURCHASED ON 23.3.2010 FOR RS.39,89,000/-, THUS, IT IS UNCONTROV ERTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS INVEST ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF WIFE A S IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF WIFE. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE I S ELIGIBLE FOR THE EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. RELIANCE ON VARIOUS DE CISIONS WAS ALSO MADE. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR DEFENDED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. I HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND THAT THE PRESE NT ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN TH E JUDGMENT OF P & H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GURNAM SINGH (201 0) 327 ITR 278 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 54B IN RESPECT OF THE LAND PURCHASED BY HIM. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS DE NIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE LAND WAS R EGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES SON BEING CO-OWNER. THE HON' BLE HIGH COURT ALLOWED EXEMPTION HOLDING THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD REC ORDED A PURE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS USED ONLY FOR AG RICULTURAL PURPOSES AND MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEES SON WAS SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED AS CO-OWNER, IT DID NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. IT WAS NO T THE CASE OF THE KAILASH NARAYAN CHATURVEDI - SMC ITA 14 OF 2015 4 REVENUE THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS EXCLUSIVELY U SED BY HIS SON. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U /S 54B. 6. ON CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND SUBMISSION IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DECISION, I FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE , IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE AS HIS SHARE FROM THE HUF PROPERTY, WAS SOLD ON 19.3.2010 FOR RS .43,30,000/- AND ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEES WIFE HAS BEEN PURCHASED ON 23.3.2010 FOR RS.39,89,000/-. THUS, TH E AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS INVESTED BY THE A SSESSEE IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF WIFE AS IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF WIFE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY P & H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GURNAM SINGH (2010) 327 ITR 278, I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT ION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, I DELETE THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.6.2016 . SD/- ( D.T. GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 08.6.2016 !VYS! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR, INDORE