Shri Amit Laxmanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1676/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0554 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-11-2019
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR SHYAM PRASAD
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI AMIT LAXMANBHAI PATEL, 8, MARUTI HILLS BUNGALOWS, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD-380015 PAN: ABJPP9877A (APPELLANT) VS THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: DR. SHYAM PRASAD, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI PARIN SHAH, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 08-06-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-07-202 1 /ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011-12, ARISES FRO M ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-11, AHMEDABAD DATED 04-03-2016, IN PROCEEDI NGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009-10 TO 2012-13 AROSE FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) -11 AHMEDABA D WAS ADJUDICATED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT ON 6 TH DECEMBER, 2019. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION PO INTING OUT IN RESPECT OF ITA NO. 1676 /AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 I.T.A NO. 1676/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE NO SHRI AMIT LAXMANBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT 2 APPEAL ADJUDICATED VIDE ITA NO. 1676/AHD/2016 ON 6 TH DECEMBER, 2019 INADVERTENTLY GROUND NOS. 7 & 8 REMAINED TO BE ADJU DICATED. THEREFORE VIDE ORDER DATED 1 ST DECEMBER, 2020 THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS RECALLED TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUND NOS. 7 & 8 OF THE AFORESAID A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND NOS. 7 AND 8 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 7. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW IN AND ON FACTS CONFIR MING DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS. 9, 60, 0007- INDEX ED AT RS. 20, 82, 093/- COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF AGRICUL TURAL LAND AT MAKARBA. LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED COST OF IMPROVEMENT I NCURRED AND RIGHTFULLY CLAIMED ON LAND PURCHASED IN 1995 BY THE APPELLANT. 8. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ADJ UDICATING CONTENTION RAISED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUND THAT DISALLOWANCE IN ANY CASE DESERVED TO BE DELETED SINCE AGAINST INVESTMENT OF RS. 1, 43, 09, 000/- IN THE NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND LTCG CLAIMED WAS ONLY TO EXTENT OF RS. 1,19, 7 4, 290/- DEDUCTING INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS. 20, 82, 0937-. THUS EVEN IF THE SAID IMPROVEMENT COST IS ADDED, LTCG WOULD STILL BE NIL. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFOR E US, AT THE OUTSET THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE ON S IMILAR FACT PERTAINING TO THE CLAIM OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT FOR COMPUTING LONG TER M CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT MAKARBA WAS ADJUDICATED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF THE CO-OWNER WHEREIN 50% OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS ALLOWED. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS FAIR ENOUGH NOT TO CONTROVERT THI S UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE ON SIMILAR FACT HAS BEEN ADJUDICATE D BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT AS REFERRED ABOVE. 4. HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER 5 C O-OWNERS/PARTNERS SOLD I.T.A NO. 1676/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE NO SHRI AMIT LAXMANBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT 3 AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT MAKARKBA, SARKHEJ DIS TRICT, AHMEDABAD ADMEASURING 14080 SQUARE YARDS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 6 CRORES ( RS. 1 CRORE TO EACH PARTNER AS THEIR SHARES). THE ASSESS EE HAD SHOWN IMPROVEMENT COST OF RS. 9,60,000/- AND CLAIMED INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT AT RS. 20,82,093/- OF THE SAID LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD WHEREIN THE BENCH HAS ADJUDICATED THE SIMILAR ISSUE ON IDENTICAL FACT S IN THE CASE OF THE CO- OWNERS SHRI ALKESH LAXMANBHAI PATEL VIDE ITA NOS. 1 678, 1679, 1680 AND 1681/AHD/2016 DATED 23-03-2018 WHEREIN THE CLAIM OF IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURE WAS ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF THE AMOUNT. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IS RE PRODUCED AS UNDER:- 20. SO FAR GROUND NO. 5 WITH REGARD TO COST OF IMP ROVEMENT OF RS. 9,60,000/- INDEXED AT RS. 20,82,093/- COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPI TAL GAIN ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT MAKARBA IS CONCERNED. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT COST OF IMPROVEMENT INCURRED RIGHTFULLY CLAIM ON LAND PURCHASED IN 1995 BUT DESPITE OF THE FACT THAT SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. APPELLANT DID NOT D ISCHARGE HIS ONES BY PRODUCING BILL OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR IMPROVEMENT IN SU PPORT OF HIS CLAIM. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, WE MUST HAVE SPENT SOME AMOUNT MAINTAINING THE LAND, THEREFORE, 50% OF THE AMOUNT SHOULD BE AL LOWED. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO CALCULATE THE 50% COST OF-IMPROVEMENT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND GIVE THE EFFECT OF THE SAME TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IN THE APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT AS REFERRED ABOVE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CALCULATE 50% COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AS DIRECTED IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT AS MENTIONED ABOV E. ACCORDINGLY, THIS I.T.A NO. 1676/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE NO SHRI AMIT LAXMANBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT 4 GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. SINCE WE HAVE ADJUDICATED AND ALLOWED THE GROUND NO. 7 OF THE ASS ESSEE, THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 8 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRE SSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12-07-2021 SD/- SD/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 12/07/2021 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,