A. Kafeel Ahmed, Vellore V. ACIT, Vellore

ITA 2331/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7843 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ' # . $ , & ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICI AL MEMBER ITA NO. ASSTT. YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 2330/MDS/2016 2012-13 MR. A.UVAIS AHMED 235-236, THALAYATHAM BAZAAR SANTHAPET, GUDIYATTAM,VELLORE DIST PAN:AACPA8099D ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, VELLORE 2331/MDS/2016 2012-13 MR. A.KAFEEL AHMED 235-236, THALAYATHAM BAZAAR SANTHAPET, GUDIYATTAM,VELLORE DIST PAN:AGDPA9126A ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, VELLORE 2332/MDS/2016 2012-13 MR. A. SUHAIL AHMED 235-236, THALAYATHAM BAZAAR SANTHAPET, GUDIYATTAM,VELLORE DIST PAN:AADPA1025G ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, VELLORE / APPELLANT BY : MR. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 2 ND NOVEMBER,2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 ND DECEMBER, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THREE DIFFERENT ASSESSES, WHO ARE BROTHERS AGGRIEVED BY THE SEPARAT E ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-13, CHENNAI ALL DATED 31.05.2016 IN ITA NOS.255, 256 & 252/CIT(A)-13/AY 2012-13 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) R.W.S. 250(6) OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NO.2330 TO 2332/MDS/2016 2. THE ASSESSES HAVE RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN THES E THREE APPEALS, HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF THE COMMON ISSU E IS AS FOLLOWS:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND FOR ` 56,87,214/-, ` 56,87,214/- AND ` 62,19,814/- RESPECTIVELY WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ABOVE SAID THREE ASSESSES FILED THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2012-13 DECLARING THEIR TOTAL INCOME OF ` 23,25,980/- ` 22,67,602/-, AND ` 65,35,000/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF ` 19,666/-, ` 19,422/- AND ` 10,275/- UNDER CHAPTER VI A OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY. NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF T HE ACT WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEES ON 02.09.2014. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON 30.09.2014 WHEREIN HE DISALLOWED THE CLA IM OF INDEXED COST ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET SOLD BY THE A SSESSEES AND TREATED THEIR ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FRO M THE 3 ITA NO.2330 TO 2332/MDS/2016 STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME THAT THE ASSESSES HAVE SH OWN SALE OF PLOTS IN RESPECT OF THEIR ECR PLOTS, LIFE STYLE ECR AND LTAIF ESTATE FOR SALE CONSIDERATION OF ` 19,20,000/-, ` 26,40,000/- AND ` 19,20,000/- AGGREGATING TO ` 64,80,000/-. WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN THE ASSESSES H AD CLAIMED INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THOSE ASSETS AS ` 56,87,214/-, ` 56,87,214/- AND ` 62,19,814/- RESPECTIVELY AND WORKED OUT THEIR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF ` 7,92,786/-, ` 7,72,786/- AND ` 43,60,186/- RESPECTIVELY. WHEN THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSES TO PRODUCE THE IR PURCHASE/SALE DEEDS IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE COST OF ACQUISITION/ INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION/ SALE CONS IDERATION ETC., THE ASSESSES FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SAME AND T HEREFORE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AND TREATED THEIR ENTIRE SALE C ONSIDERATION AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) AFTER CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE EVIDENCES PLACED BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE HIM, CONFIRMED THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED AS SESSING 4 ITA NO.2330 TO 2332/MDS/2016 OFFICER AS THE ASSESSES ONCE AGAIN FAILED TO SUBSTA NTIATE THEIR CLAIM WITH PROPER EVIDENCE. 5. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN POSSESSION ALL TH E REQUISITE DOCUMENTS THEREFORE; ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE PR OVIDED IN ORDER TO FURNISH THOSE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE REVE NUE, OTHERWISE, IT WOULD RESULT IN MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTIC E. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENT LY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE STATING THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIE S WERE GIVEN BY THE BOTH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THE EARLIER OCCASIONS AND NOW THE ASSESSEE IS ARGUING ON FLIMSY GROUNDS I N ORDER TO PROLONG THE PAYMENT OF TAX. HENCE, IT WAS PLEAD ED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEES MAY BE DISMISSED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE. FROM THE RECORDS PRODUCED BEFORE US , IT IS APPARENT THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE 5 ITA NO.2330 TO 2332/MDS/2016 LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD GI VEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO ALL THE ASSESSES IN ORDER TO FURNISH PURCHASE / SALE DEEDS FOR VERIFICATION OF THE COMPU TATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ACCRUED TO THEM. IN SPITE O F THE SAME, THE ASSESSEES HAVE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE REVENUE. IN THIS SITUATION, TH E ASSESSEES DO NOT DESERVE ANY MERCY. HOWEVER, IN TH E INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT BACK ALL THE A PPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION. WE ALSO HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSES TO PROMPTLY FURNISH ALL THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE REVENUE WITHOUT SEEKING ANY ADJOURNMENT FAILING WHI CH THE REVENUE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORD ERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW & MERIT. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREI N ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 22 ND DECEMBER, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( ' # . $ ) ( . ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 6 ITA NO.2330 TO 2332/MDS/2016 /CHENNAI, $ /DATED 22 ND DECEMBER, 2016 SOMU () *) /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. + () /CIT(A) 4. + /CIT 5. ) / /DR 6. 2 /GF