ITO, Meerut V. Shri Saifduddin, Meerut

ITA 243/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0123 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 22-03-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABDUL WAHAB
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH : G NEW DELHI) (DELHI BENCH : G NEW DELHI) (DELHI BENCH : G NEW DELHI) (DELHI BENCH : G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.243,244,245,246 & 247/DEL./2011 I.T.A. NOS.243,244,245,246 & 247/DEL./2011 I.T.A. NOS.243,244,245,246 & 247/DEL./2011 I.T.A. NOS.243,244,245,246 & 247/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1988 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1988 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1988 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1988- -- -89,90 89,90 89,90 89,90- -- -91,91 91,91 91,91 91,91- -- -92 & 93 92 & 93 92 & 93 92 & 93- -- -94) 94) 94) 94) ITO, WARD 2(1), ITO, WARD 2(1), ITO, WARD 2(1), ITO, WARD 2(1), VS. VS. VS. VS. SHRI SAIFDUDDIN, SHRI SAIFDUDDIN, SHRI SAIFDUDDIN, SHRI SAIFDUDDIN, MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. S/O SHRI RAMJAN KHAN, S/O SHRI RAMJAN KHAN, S/O SHRI RAMJAN KHAN, S/O SHRI RAMJAN KHAN, H.NO.2211, RASHEED NAGAR, H.NO.2211, RASHEED NAGAR, H.NO.2211, RASHEED NAGAR, H.NO.2211, RASHEED NAGAR, LISARI GATE, LISARI GATE, LISARI GATE, LISARI GATE, MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. (PAN/GIR NO. N.A.) (PAN/GIR NO. N.A.) (PAN/GIR NO. N.A.) (PAN/GIR NO. N.A.) AND AND AND AND I.T.A. NOS. 266,267,268,269 & 270/DEL./2011 I.T.A. NOS. 266,267,268,269 & 270/DEL./2011 I.T.A. NOS. 266,267,268,269 & 270/DEL./2011 I.T.A. NOS. 266,267,268,269 & 270/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1988 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1988 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1988 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1988- -- -89,90 89,90 89,90 89,90- -- -91,91 91,91 91,91 91,91- -- -92 & 93 92 & 93 92 & 93 92 & 93- -- -94) 94) 94) 94) ITO, WARD 2(1), ITO, WARD 2(1), ITO, WARD 2(1), ITO, WARD 2(1), VS. VS. VS. VS. SHRI SAEEDUDDIN, SHRI SAEEDUDDIN, SHRI SAEEDUDDIN, SHRI SAEEDUDDIN, MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. S/O LATE SH. RAMJAN KHAN, S/O LATE SH. RAMJAN KHAN, S/O LATE SH. RAMJAN KHAN, S/O LATE SH. RAMJAN KHAN, H.NO.126, FIROZ NAGAR, H.NO.126, FIROZ NAGAR, H.NO.126, FIROZ NAGAR, H.NO.126, FIROZ NAGAR, MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. (PAN/GIR NO. : N.A.) (PAN/GIR NO. : N.A.) (PAN/GIR NO. : N.A.) (PAN/GIR NO. : N.A.) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ABDUL WAHAB, ADV. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ABDUL WAHAB, ADV. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ABDUL WAHAB, ADV. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ABDUL WAHAB, ADV. REVENUE BY : SHRI KISHORE B., CIT(DR) REVENUE BY : SHRI KISHORE B., CIT(DR) REVENUE BY : SHRI KISHORE B., CIT(DR) REVENUE BY : SHRI KISHORE B., CIT(DR) ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM THESE ARE DEPARTMENTS APPEALS FOR A.YS. 1988-89 & 90-9 1 TO 93- 94 IN THE CASES OF TWO ASSESSEES. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE COMMON, THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSAL OF BY THIS SINGL E ORDER. FOR FACILITY, THE FACTS ARE BEING TAKEN FROM ITA NO.243: 1. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ADOPT THE RATE OF COST OF ACQUISITION AT ` 20/- PER SQ. YARD IGNORING THE STAND OF THE A.O. WHO ADOPTED THE RATE AT `. 12/- PER SQ. YD. I.T.A. NOS.243-247 &266-270/DEL./2011 (A.YS.: 1988-89 & 90-91 TO 93-94)) 2 2. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO EXCLUDE THE AMOUNT OF ADDIT IONAL COMPENSATION AND SOLATIUM WHILE COMPUTING INTEREST IGN ORING THAT THE ADJ IV MEERUT, ON WHOSE ORDER THE INTEREST W AS ALLOWED OBSERVED THAT THE INTEREST WILL BE ALLOWED ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION, ADDITIONAL COMPENSATIO N AND SOLATIUM PUT TOGETHER AND ALSO IGNORING THAT THE INTE REST PERTAINS TO THE PERIOD FROM 26/8/87 TO 19/3/92 WHERE AS THE CIVIL APPEAL IS DATED 1995. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE CONCERNING GROUND NO.1 IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ADOPT THE RATE OF 20% PER SQ. YD . IGNORING THE STAND OF THE AO, WHO ADOPTED THE RATE AT `12 PER SQ. YD. 3. THE FACTS ARE THAT CERTAIN LANDS WERE ACQUIRED BY THE UTTAR PRADESH AWAS EVAM VIKAS NIGAM IN MEERUT ON 26.8.87. THE LAND OWNERS IGNORING THE PRESENT ASSESSEE RECEIVED COMPENSATION . THE AO CALCULATED THE TAX THEREON. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOWED COST OF ACQUISITION AT `90 PER SQ. YD. THIS AS PER THE AO WOULD MEAN THAT THE COST OF 1 ACRE OF LAND FOR `35,600. OBSERV ING THAT SINCE THE LAND INVOLVED WAS AGRICULTURAL, LAND IT WAS TOO HIGH AN AMOUNT TO BE ADOPTED AS COST OF ACQUISITION. THE AO ADOPTED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT `12 PER SQ.YD. 4. BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE CIT(A), FOL LOWING THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 16.5.02 IN I.T.A.NO.1104/DEL. /96 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89 IN THE CASE OF ALLAUDDIN, WHEREIN THE RATE OF `20/- PER SQ. YD. AS COST OF ACQUISITION ON 1.4.74 WAS DIRECTED TO BE ADOPTED. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 6. CHALLENDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD.DR HAS CON TENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADOPTING THE RATE OF ` 20/- PER SQ.YD. AS AGAINST `12 PER SQ.YD., TAKEN BY THE AO. 7. AS AGAINST THIS, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE AFORESAID TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 16.05.02(SUPRA ). 8. IN THE SAID TRIBUNAL ORDER, HAVING PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE CONTENDING PART IES, WE FIND THAT THE I.T.A. NOS.243-247 &266-270/DEL./2011 (A.YS.: 1988-89 & 90-91 TO 93-94)) 3 ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE TRIBUNALS ORDER (SUPRA) . THEREIN, IT AS BEEN OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: IN CASE OF EACH OF THE ASSESSEES THE MAIN GROUND ARGUED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS ABOUT THE COST OF ACQU ISITION AS ON 1.4.1974. RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT LAND OF EACH OF THE ASSESSEES SITUATED AT BRAHAMPURI, MEERUT WAS ACQUIRED. TH E ASSESSEES CLAIMED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 1.4.1974 @ `90/- PER SQ.YD. AND EACH OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON T HE COPY OF SALE DEED OF SMT. SATYAWATI DEVI WHO HAD SOLD THE LAND ON 4.4.1974 @ `90/- PER SQ.YD. SECOND SALE DEED DATED 2 6.6.1997 OF SMT. KAMLA DEVI BY WHICH LAND WAS SOLD @ `95/- PER SQ.YD. WAS ALSO FILED. THE THIRD SALE DEED DATED 17.6.1982 E XECUTED BY PREM PRAKASH SELLING THE LAND @ 150 PER SQ.YD WAS ALSO F ILED. THE AO NOTED THAT LAND OF THESE PERSONS WAS SITUATED IN THICKLY POPULATED LOCALITY OF BRAHAMPURI WITH ADJOINING ROA D. THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND FAR AWAY FROM THE LOCALITY OF BRAHAMPURI. THE AO COLLECTED SALE DEEDS OF LIKEWI SE AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM THE OFFICE OF SUB-REGISTRAR T OTALING EIGHT IN NUMBERS AND THE DATES OF SALE DEEDS WAS FROM APRIL 1974 TO JULY 1977. THE AO GAVE OUT THE RATE OF LAND WHICH WAS RA NGING FROM `7.92 PR SQ. YD. TO `20 PER SQ.YD. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT `15 PER SQ.YD. WOULD BE THE R EASONABLE AMOUNT AS COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 1.4.1974. THE CIT( A) ALSO CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND LOOKED INTO T HE ORDER OF THE AO AND REJECTED THE ROUND. EACH OF TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE CONTENTIONS WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE THE AO AND C IT(A) WERE REITERATED BEFORE ME. MUCH RELIANCE WAS ALSO PL ACED ON THE SALE DE3ED OF PREM PRAKASH EXECUTED ON 17.6.1982 BY W HICH LAND WAS SOLD @ `150 PER SQ.YD. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT NO DOUBT THE LAND WAS SOLD AFTER EIGHT YEARS BUT LAND OF THE ASSE SSEE ON 1.4.1974 WOULD NOT BE LESS THAN RS.85 TO RS.90 PER SQ.YD AND AO AS WELL AS CIT(A) IGNORED THE EXEMPLARS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF NISAR AHMAD DECIDED BY CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 16.11 .1998 COPY APPEARING AT PAGES 10 TO 20 OF THE PAPER BOOK I N WHICH IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS INVOLVED AND CIT(A) AND FIXED THE COST OF ACQUISITION @ RS.20 PER SQ. YD. AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T AT LEAST RS.20 PER SQ. YD. BE TAKEN AS COST OF LAND ON 1.4.1974. LD.DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, I AM OF THE DEFINITE VIEW THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 1.4.1974 SHOULD BE RS.20 PER SQ.YD. AS DECIDED BY THE C IT(A) I.T.A. NOS.243-247 &266-270/DEL./2011 (A.YS.: 1988-89 & 90-91 TO 93-94)) 4 PARTICULARLY WHEN EXEMPLARS CITED BY CIT(A) ARE ALSO OF THE RATE EXTENDING UP TO RS.20 PER SQ.YD. THE AO IS DIRECTED T O CALCULATE THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT BY ADOPTING THE RTE O F RS.20/- PER SQ.YD. AS COST OF ACQUISITION ON 1.4.1974. 8. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE FACTS HEREIN ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR TO THOSE IN THE CASES OF ALLAUDDIN (SUPRA) AS WERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID MENTIONED DECISION. THEREFORE, FINDING THAT NO ERRO R WHATSOEVER IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHEREBY HE HAS DIRECTED THE RATE OF `20 PER SQ.YD. TO BE ADOPTED, WE HEREBY CONFIRM GROUND NO.1 TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ALL THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS ARE THUS, REJECTED. 9. GROUND NO.2 COMPRISES THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO EXCLUDE THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION OF SOLATIUM FOR COMPUTING INTEREST. AS PE R THE DEPARTMENT, IN DOING THE CIT(A) RECENTLY ERRONEOUSLY IGNORED THAT THE ADJ, MEERUT ON WHOSE ORDER, THE INTEREST WAS ALLOWED, OBSERVING THAT THE INTEREST WILL BE ALLOWED ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION, DECIDED COMPENSATION AND SOLATIUM PUT TOGETHER AND A LSO INORDING THE INTEREST PERTAINED TO THE PERIOD FROM 26.8.87 TO 19. 3.92 WHEREAS THE CIVIL APPEAL IS OF 1995. 10. IT IS SEEN THAT THE CIT(A) WHILE DIRECTING THE AO TO EXCLUDE THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AND SOLATIUM WHILE COMPUTING THE INTEREST, HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SAIFUDDIN (ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NOS.24 3 TO 247), IN CIVIL SUIT NO.6343/1/95. A COPY OF THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US). THEREIN, THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT HAS OBSERVED, INTER ALIA, THAT: WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT ON A PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 55 OF THE ADHINIYAM, IT MUST BE HELD THAT WHILE INCORPORATING THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND ACQUISITION A CT IN THE ADHINIYAM, THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS THAT AMENDMENT IN THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT RELATING TO DETERMINATIO N AND PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO ACQUI SITION OF LANDS FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADHINIYAM. THIS MEANS THAT TH E AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED IN THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT BY THE 1984 I.T.A. NOS.243-247 &266-270/DEL./2011 (A.YS.: 1988-89 & 90-91 TO 93-94)) 5 ACT, RELATING DETERMINATION AND PAYMENT OF COMPENSAT ION, VIZ., SECTION 23(1-A) AND SECTION 23(2) AND 28 AS AMENDMENT BY 1984 ACT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO ACQUISITIONS FOR THE PURPO SES OF ADHINIYAM U/S 55 OF THE ADHINIYAM. 11. THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD THAT THE CLAIMANTS, I.E, THE ASSESSEES WERE NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON ADDITIONAL AMOUNT U/S 23( 1A) AND SOLATIUM U/S 23(2). 12. IT WAS UNDER THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT THAT THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO EXCLUDE TH E AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AND SOLATIUM WHILE COMPUTING INTEREST. FINDING NO ERROR IN SUCH DIRECTION, WE UPHOLD THE SAM E. AS SUCH, GROUND NO.2 IS ALSO REJECTED. 13. AS NOTED IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS ORDER, THE FACT S IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR. AS SUCH, OUR ABOVE OBSERVA TIONS ARE APPLICABLE, MUTATES MUTANDIS TO ALL THE APPEALS. 14. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 10 APPEALS FILED BY THE DE PARTMENT IN THE CASES OF THE TWO ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON 22.03.2011. SD/- SD/- [SHAMIM YAHYA] [A.D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE MARCH, 22, 2011. SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A), MEERUT. 5. CIT( ITAT) DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES I.T.A. NOS.243-247 &266-270/DEL./2011 (A.YS.: 1988-89 & 90-91 TO 93-94)) 6