Sh. Jeet Ram, New Delhi V. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 182/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8415 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 54B

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 182/Del/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 Jeet Ram, C/o M/s RRA TAXINDIA D-28, South Extension, Part-1 New Delhi – 110 049 PAN AQHPR7824E Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3) Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE,JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the CIT (A)-1, Gurgaon for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under :- 1. “That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in upholding that the impugned Assessee by: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somit Agarwal, Advocate Department by : Shri M.K. Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10/11/2021 Date of pronouncement 16/11/2021 ITA No. 182/Del/2017 2 agricultural land was “capital asset”, more so when it was not a “capital asset” and not chargeable to tax. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of authorities below in bringing to tax the surplus arising on the sale of impugned agricultural land is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in not allowing the benefit of deduction of Rs.4,92,46,855/- claimed by assessee u/s 54B and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in not allowing the benefit of deduction of Rs.4,92,46,855/- claimed by assessee u/s 54B, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the benefit of deduction of Rs.25,00,000/- claimed by assessee u/s 54 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in not allowing the benefit of deduction of Rs.25,00,000/- claimed by assessee u/s 54, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.3,88,245/- on account of cash deposits in bank account and that too without appreciating/considering the submissions of assessee and without observing the principles of natural justice. 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A and 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No. 182/Del/2017 3 9. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 3. Return declaring income of Rs. 5,61,880/- was filed on 02.12.2013. During the course of assessment proceeding, the AO noted that there were deposits in the bank account of the appellant. The AO further noted that appellant had sold his ancestral agricultural land for Rs. 5,74,15,625/- on 29.11.2011 and the capital gains on this land was computed at Rs. 5,72,58,625/-. The appellant had claimed deduction of Rs. 79,70,000/- u/s 54 and Rs. 4,92,46,855/- u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act and the balance amount of Rs. 41,770/- was declared as Long Term Capital Gain in the return. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed certain additional evidences as well as additional grounds before this Tribunal which may be admitted and the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the evidences as well as the grounds. 5. Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). Ld. DR objected the admission of additional evidences as well as additional grounds. ITA No. 182/Del/2017 4 6. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the additional grounds raised by the assessee before us are legal ground in relation to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we are admitting the same. As regards additional evidences are concerned, the same needs proper adjudication and verification. Therefore, we direct the AO to take proper cognizance of the additional evidence as well as to deal with the additional grounds as per law. Needless to say the assessee be given an opportunity by following principles of natural justice. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court in presence of both the parties on 16 th November, 2021. sd/- sd/- (R.K. PANDA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 16/11/2021 Veena Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent ITA No. 182/Del/2017 5 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi