Late Sh. Pitam Singh, Ghaziabad V. ITO, Ghaziabad

ITA 2141/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6839 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATISH KUMAR GUPTA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains
• Section: 54B; 142(1); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES D: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.2141/DEL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 LATE SHRI PITAM SINGH, TH. L/H. SH. JITENDRA SINGH, GHAZIABAD. PAN BHHPK0688K C/O. SH. AKHILESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE, CHAMBER NO.206-07, ANSAL SATYAM, RDC RAJ NAGAR, GHAZIABAD. VS., THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), GHAZIABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : - NONE - FOR REVENUE : SHRI SATISH KUMAR GUPTA, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 22 . 1 0.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 . 11 .2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), GHAZIABAD, DATED 15.02.2016, FOR THE A.Y. 2009-2010. 2 ITA.NO.2141/DEL./2016 LATE SHRI PITAM SINGH, GHAZIABAD. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION THAT SHRI PITAM SINGH HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS.61,87,600/- RELEVANT TO A.Y.2009-10 UNDER APPEAL IN HIS S.B A/C WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED ON 12.10.2012 AFTER RECORDING PROPER REASONS. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) WAS ALSO ISSUED, BUT, SAME WAS ALSO NOT ATTENDED. LATER ON, FURTHER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO SHRI JITENDER SINGH, LEGAL-HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE THAT CASE HAS BEEN FIXED FOR SEVERAL DATES, BUT, NO COMPLIANCE HAVE BEEN MADE. THEREFORE, EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD BE PASSED IN THE CASE OF FURTHER NON-COOPERATION. NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O. EVEN AFTER SERVICE OF THE SAID NOTICE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT COOPERATING WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.61,87,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED DEPOSIT IN THE S.B. ACCOUNT WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE. THE A.O. PASSED THE ORDER 3 ITA.NO.2141/DEL./2016 LATE SHRI PITAM SINGH, GHAZIABAD. UNDER SECTION 147/144 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, DATED 27.02.2014. THE ASSESSEE THROUGH LEGAL-HEIR FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL CHALLENGING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE WAS AN AGRICULTURIST AND HAS ANCESTRAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND DEPOSITED THE SALE PROCEEDS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND FURTHER PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE EXPIRED ON 27.02.2013, THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT IS INVALID. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF SMT. NEERA DEVI, AND SAVITA DEVI WIVES OF HIS SONS SHRI JITENDRA AND SHRI VIJENDRA AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE LD. CIT(A) CALL FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH THE A.O. HAS MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED ANY OF THE ISSUE AT ASSESSMENT STAGE AND NO DETAILS OF THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN FILED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SINCE LAND WAS CONVERTED INTO PLOTS, 4 ITA.NO.2141/DEL./2016 LATE SHRI PITAM SINGH, GHAZIABAD. THEREAFTER PLOTS WERE SOLD, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE IN THE REJOINDER REITERATED THE SAME FACTS. THE ASSESSEE MADE FURTHER SUBMISSION FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, ON WHICH, REMAND REPORT WAS FURTHER CALLED FOR IN WHICH A.O. REITERATED THE SAME FACTS AS WERE FILED IN EARLIER REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSEE FILED FURTHER REJOINDER. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD NOTED THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED ON 12.10.2012. HOWEVER, THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ON RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT HE HAS EXPIRED ON 27.02.2013 AND SUCH FACT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED BY COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE WAS INCORRECT THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF DEAD PERSON. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 3.1. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO CASE OF ERRONEOUSLY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2). THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER 5 ITA.NO.2141/DEL./2016 LATE SHRI PITAM SINGH, GHAZIABAD. SECTION 142(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FOUND THAT IT IS NOWHERE MENTIONED THAT SELLER WAS HUF OR THAT THOSE PLOTS OF LAND WAS SOLD IN CAPACITY OF KARTHA OF HUF, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND WAS ALSO DISMISSED. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE CONVERTED THE LAND INTO PLOTS AND SUCH LAND WAS NOT USED FOR ANY AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES SO AS TO ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. FURTHER NO FURTHER PROPERTY HAVE BEEN PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE BECAUSE THESE WERE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF DAGUTHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER GRANTED BENEFIT OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AND MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.54,03,513/-. THUS, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. ASSESSEE HAS BEEN NOTIFIED THE DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING ON 13.08.2019, APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE FOR 22.10.2019. HOWEVER, ON THE DATE 6 ITA.NO.2141/DEL./2016 LATE SHRI PITAM SINGH, GHAZIABAD. FIXED ON 22.10.2019, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DECIDED IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) CORRECTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ON ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. D.R. AND CONSIDERING THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON ANY GROUNDS OF APPEALS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN SPECIFIC FINDING OF FACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUBMISSIONS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DIFFER WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 7 ITA.NO.2141/DEL./2016 LATE SHRI PITAM SINGH, GHAZIABAD. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (B.R.R. KUMAR) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI, DATED 01 ST NOVEMBER, 2019 VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT D BENCH 6. GUARD FILE // BY ORDER // ASST. REGISTRAR: ITAT DELHI BENCHES : DELHI.