D. Ravikumar, Thiruvallur V. ITO, Thiruvallur

ITA 2568/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8246 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: N V BALAJI
• Section: 143(3); 54

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . , . , # $ BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G.PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.P.NO.228/MDS/2016 & ITA NO.2568/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13) MR.D.RAVIKUMAR, 2-1439, PULIYUR KANDIGAI ROAD, VEPPAMPATTU CHATHIRAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLUVAR-602 024. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, THIRUVALLUR. PAN:BGYPR8742R (PETITIONER) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. N.V.BALAJI, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 21 ST OCTOBER, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 TH OCTOBER, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM: THIS STAY PETITION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING STAY FROM RECOVERY OF THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND OF RS. 24,1 6,890/-. SINCE THE APPEAL ITSELF IS TAKEN UP FOR DISPOSAL, T HE STAY PETITION BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND THE SAME IS DISMIS SED. 2. THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- 2 S.P. NO.228/MDS/2016 & ITA NO.2568/MDS/2016 7, CHENNAI DATED 10.08.2016 IN ITA NO.88/CIT(A)-7/2 015-16 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 250(6) OF THE AC T. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS A PPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS AS FOLLOWS:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 87,73,450/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT AND ALSO DENIED TO TREAT THE LAND TRANSFERRED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON 03.09.2013 ADMITTING INCOME UNDER THE H EAD CAPITAL GAIN OF ` 5,61,580/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 04.09.2014. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SE CTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 27.03.2015 WHEREIN HE DISALLOW ED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT AMOUN TING TO RS. 87,73,450/- AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE T HE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. TH E CAPITAL 3 S.P. NO.228/MDS/2016 & ITA NO.2568/MDS/2016 GAIN OF RS. 93,35,028 WAS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE. ACC ORDINGLY, THE LD.A.O MADE ADDITION OF RS. 87,73,450/- (93,35,028 5,61,578/- = 87,73,450 BEING THE DISALLOWANCE OF TH E CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT.). 6. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRIC ULTURAL LAND OWNED BY HIM WAS ACQUIRED COMPULSORILY BY THE GOVERNMENT AND COMPENSATION WAS PAID WHICH RESULTED IN THE CAPITAL GAIN. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE LAND ACQUIRED WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND THE TRANSFER OF THE SAME WOULD NOT ATTRACT CAPITAL GAIN TAX. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REJECTED THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THOUGH IN THE AWARD ORDER, IT IS INDICATED THAT 46.45 SQ.METERS OF THE LAND AS CULTI VABLE LAND, THE NARRATION IN THE AWARD ORDER ALSO MENTIONED HO USING SITE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER. 4 S.P. NO.228/MDS/2016 & ITA NO.2568/MDS/2016 7. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND ACQUIRED FROM THE ASSESSEE BY THE GOVERNMENT IS AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS ALSO INDI CATED IN THE AWARD ORDER AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD N OT BE LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAIN TAX. HENCE, IT WAS ARGUED T HAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE D ELETED. 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND VEHEMENTLY ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT APPEARS FROM THE ORDER OF T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE ENTIRE F ACTS BEFORE HIM TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CI T(A) HAS ALSO NOT DEALT WITH THE ISSUE ELABORATELY PROBABLY BECAUSE HE ALSO DID NOT HAVE THE ENTIRE FACTS BEFORE HIM. SINC E THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW PRODUCED BEFORE US PAPER BOOK CONS ISTING OF PATTA, CHITTA AND ADANGAL AND LAND ACQUISITION A WARD ORDER DATED 28.06.2011 WHEREIN IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE L AND VALUE 5 S.P. NO.228/MDS/2016 & ITA NO.2568/MDS/2016 TO THE EXTENT OF 46.45 SQ.METERS IS CULTIVABLE LAND , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ENTIRE MATTER SHOULD B E REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER F OR FRESH CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION WITH DIRECTION TO ADMIT AND E XAMINE ALL THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 26 TH OCTOBER , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (G.PAVAN KUMAR) ( A.MOHA N ALANKAMONY ) ! # / JUDICIAL MEMBER # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! /CHENNAI, & /DATED 26 TH OCTOBER, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF.