Shri Vinod Tyagi, Ghaziabad V. ITO, Ghaziabad

ITA 1635/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9287 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 54B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1635/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 VINOD TYAGI, VS. ITO, WARD 2(1), S/O LATE SH. GANGAVASI TYAGI CGO COMPLEX-2 VILLAGE-NOOR NAGAR, HAPUR CHUNGI, SIHANI, GHAZIABAD UP-201002 GHAZIABAD (PAN: AGIPT1325P) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. SRIDHAR DORA, SR. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 5.12.2014 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), GHAZIABAD RELA TING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING THE LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54B OF I.T. ACT, IN AN ABRUPT, ARBITRARY AND CURSORY MA NNER WITHOUT CONSIDERING AT ALL THE CLINCHING EVIDENCE R ELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT IN DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PLACING RELIANCE EXCLUSIVELY ON THE RECITAL OF LAND AS RESIDENTIAL IN THE SALE DEED, WHICH IS N OTHING 2 BUT A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AND LACK OF VIGILANCE AND LEGAL KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF DEED WRITER. 3. THAT EVEN OTHERWISE TOO THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT MERE SO CALLED RECITAL IN THE SALE DEED BY NO CANNON OF LAW A GOSPEL TRUTH AND IT DOES NOT RUL E OUT, SUPERSEDE THE ENTRIES IN LAND REVENUE RECORDS MAINTAINED AT TEHSIL LEVEL. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FA CT THAT MERE SO CALLED DESCRIPTION OF LAND AS RESIDENTIAL I N THE SALE DEED ITSELF IS NOT A LEGAL BAR FOR EXEMPTION U /S. 54B OF I.T. ACT, AS IT CLEARLY REFERS TO LAND USED F OR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, AS IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IG NITION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S. 271(1)(C) OF I.T. ACT IS NOT LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE. 6. ANY ADDITIONAL GROUND / GROUNDS. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE N OT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORDS . WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAG ES 1-98 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ITR AND COMP UTATION FOR AY 2011-12; ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. A CT, 1961 ALONGWITH COPY OF SUBMISSION DATED 19.2.2014 TO PROVIDE A CL EAR COPY OF TEXT COPIED BY AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER; APPELLATE OR DER U/S. 250 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961; COPY OF SALE DEED FOR SALE OF LAND; COPY OF SUBMISSION 3 MADE TO AO ON 24.2.2014; COPY OF FARD SUBMITTED TO AO FOR CROP YEARS 1416,1417; COPY OF ITR AND COMPUTATION OF INC OME FOR AY 2009- 10, 2010-11 SHOWING AGRICULTURAL INCOME; CERTIFIED COPY OF KHATA KHATAUNI SHOWING TITLE OF LAND AS AGRICULTURAL ALO NGWITH DEATH CERTIFICATE OF FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE; CERTIFIED CO PY OF KHASRA GIRAWARI FOR CROP YEAR 1416,1417 AND 1418 REFLECTING AGRICUL TURAL ACTIVITY ON SUBJECT LAND; CLARIFICATION BY TEHSILDAR ON CROP YE AR AND ITS CORRESPONDING CALENDAR MONTHS; CIT VS. SAVITA RANI ; 2003 133 TAXMAN 712 (P&H); ACIT VS. SRI N RAGHU VARMA; ITA NO. 613/YD/2010, ITAT, HYDERABAD AND CWT, ANDHRA PRADES H VS. OFFICER IN CHARGE (COURT OF WARDS) 1977 AIR 113 (SC). WE FI ND IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LOWER AUTHOR ITIES ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54B OF I.T. ACT, IN AN ABRUPT, ARBITRARY AND CURSORY MANNER WITHOUT CON SIDERING AT ALL THE CLINCHING EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE . IT WAS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT IN DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN PLACING RELIANCE EXCLUSIVELY ON THE RECITAL OF LAND AS RESI DENTIAL IN THE SALE DEED, WHICH IS NOTHING BUT A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AN D LACK OF VIGILANCE AND LEGAL KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF DEED WRITER. IT WAS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE TOO THE LD. CIT(A) F AILED TO APPRECIATE THAT MERE SO CALLED RECITAL IN THE SALE DEED BY NO CANNON OF LAW A GOSPEL TRUTH AND IT DOES NOT RULE OUT, SUPERSEDE TH E ENTRIES IN LAND REVENUE RECORDS MAINTAINED AT TEHSIL LEVEL. IT WAS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT MERE S O CALLED DESCRIPTION OF LAND AS RESIDENTIAL IN THE SALE DEED ITSELF IS N OT A LEGAL BAR FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54B OF I.T. ACT, AS IT CLEARLY REFE RS TO LAND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, AS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE MADE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DIS PUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W AND AFTER 4 CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS AFORESAID AND GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HE ARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FULLY COOP ERATE WITH THE AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY AD JOURNMENT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20/12/2018. SD/- SD/- [L.P. SAHU] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 20/12/2018 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES