Rambhaji Bhaurao Dhondare (HUF), Aurangabad V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 3, Aurangabad

ITA 2334/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3171 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-03-2020
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Benefit of exemption
• Section: 54B; 191; 13; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL , VICE PRESIDENT . / ITA NO. 2334 /PUN/201 7 / ASSESSMEN T YEA R : 20 12 - 13 RAMBHAJI BHAURAO DHONDARE (HUF) SOUTH CITY, WALUJ, MAHANAGAR - 2, PLOT NO.149, NEAR HOTEL KAILASH, AURANGABAD PAN : A APHR8512P .... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3, AURANGABAD / RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : S HRI PRASHANT MAHAJAN / DATE OF HEARING : 12 . 0 3 .20 20 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 .0 3 .2020 / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) - 2 , AURANGABAD ON 29 .0 8 .201 7 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 12 - 13 . 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U /S 54B OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2 ITA NO. 2334 /PUN/20 1 7 A.Y. 20 12 - 13 3. BRIEFLY STATED , THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN HUF ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE. A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD CERTAIN PROPERTY, BUT DID NOT DECLARE ANY CAPITAL GAIN IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SHOWN IN THE SUCCEED ING YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS EXECUTED ON 24.10.2011; POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS GIVEN TO THE PURCHASER AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT TO SELL ; AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.2 CRORE WAS RECEIVED ON THAT DA Y ITSELF. HE THEREFORE, HE LD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE FOR TAXATION IN RESPECT OF SAID TRANSACTION IN THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT TO SELL, THAT IS, THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE LO DGED A CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT FOR HAVING PURCHASED CERTAIN OTHER PROPERTY. THE AO OBSERVED THAT HUF WAS MADE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT ONLY W.E.F. 01.04.2013, NAMELY, A.Y. 2013 - 14. AS THE ASSESSEE HUF WAS SUBJECTED TO TAXATION FOR THE A.Y. 2012 - 13, THE AO HELD THAT SUCH BENEFIT OF EXEMPTI ON WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF AO IN DENYING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT BY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. G.K. DEVARAJULU (1991) 191 ITR 211 (MAD) HOLDING THAT THE EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEE AND NOT HUF. AGGRIEVED THEREBY, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL CONTENDING THAT THE BENEFIT OF 3 ITA NO. 2334 /PUN/20 1 7 A.Y. 20 12 - 13 EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. 4 . I HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO APPEARANCE FROM THE SIDE OF ASSESSEE, DESPITE NOTICES. AS SUCH, I AM PROCEEDING TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 5 . IT IS OBSERVED THAT THOUGH IN GROUND NO.3 THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE HIGH COURTS HAVE TAKEN CONTRARY VIEWS AND IN SOME CASE S , THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT HAS BEEN GRANTED TO HUF AS WELL RETROSPECTIVELY . HOWEVER, NO SUCH FAVOURABLE ORDER HAS BEEN POINTED OUT. THE DIRECT JUDGMENT ON THE POINT IS T HAT OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT ( SUPRA ) IN CIT VS. G.K. DEVARAJULU ( SUPRA ) , HOLDING THAT THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO AN HUF. THIS IS THE JUDGMENT WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE , RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A), I UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH DAY OF MARCH , 20 20 . SD/ - R.S. SYAL /VICE - PRESIDENT / PUNE; / DATED : 12 TH MARCH , 20 20 . GCVSR 4 ITA NO. 2334 /PUN/20 1 7 A.Y. 20 12 - 13 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) - 2 , AURANGABAD . 4. THE PR. CIT - 2 , AURANGABAD . 5. , , - , / DR, ITAT, SMC BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE 5 ITA NO. 2334 /PUN/20 1 7 A.Y. 20 12 - 13 ** DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 12 . 0 3 .20 20 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 12 . 0 3 .20 20 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR. PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR. PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER