Vishnubhai Mafatbhai Desai, Ahmedabad V. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 2849/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1350 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADITYA SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: S V AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; TDS
• Section: 56(2)(vii)(b); 80C; 143(3); 54B; 50C; 2(14); 56(2); 150(1); 56

Judgement Text

, SMC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 2849/AHD/2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) VISHNUBHAI MAFATBHAI DESAI A-40, NEELKANTH NAGAR, B/H. BAJRANG ASHRAM, THAKKARNAGAR, AHMEDABAD - 382350 / VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(4), AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : BLRPD8447B ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. V. AGRAWAL, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ADITYA SHUKLA, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING 05/08/2019 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11/09/2019 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 20.09.2017 ARI SING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.12.2016 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER (AO) UNDER S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) CONCER NING AY 2014-15. ITA NO.2849/AHD/17 [VISHNUBHAI M. DESAI VS. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 2 - 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REA D AS UNDER: 1) LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.9,50,946 MADE BY A.O. U/S 56(2)(VII)(B)(II) OF ACT IN AS MUCH AS, (I) THE AGRI. LANDS PURCHASED ARE RURAL LANDS & NO T CAPITAL ASSETS U/S. 2(14) OF ACT, THEREFORE PROVISION OF SE CTION 50C ARE NOT APPLICABLE WHEREBY PROVISION OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B)(II) IS NOT ATTRACTED. (II) THE PROVISION OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B)(II) ARE INTRODUCED W.E.F. 01.04.2014 WHEREBY SAID SECTION APPLY TO TRA NSACTIONS OF TRANSFER/PURCHASES W.E.F. 01.04.2014 & NOT TO TR ANSACTION ENTERED IN F.Y. 2013-14 (01.04.2013 TO 31.03.2014). 2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE LEARNED CIT(A) HA S ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE ENHANCED COST U/S 50C R.W.S. 56(2)(VII )(B)(II) WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR SET OFF U/S 54B R.W.S. 49(4) AGAINST SALE OF AGRI. LAND. 3) THE AGRI. LAND BEARING BLOCK NO. 143 (KHATA NO. 138) PURCHASED ON 28.07.2014 (A.Y. 2015-16) DO NOT FALL IN A.Y. 20 14-15 WHEREBY A.O. HAD ERRED IN APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SEC 56(2)( VII)(B)(II) R.W.S 50C OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2014-15 WHICH WAS SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PU RCHASED CERTAIN LAND PARCELS BELOW STAMP DUTY VALUATION RATE. THE AO AC CORDINGLY REPLACED THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION RATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETER MINATION OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56( VII)(B) OF THE ACT AS TABULATED IN PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 5. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 49(4) R.W.S. 54B OF THE ACT, THE ADDITIO N TOWARDS UNDERSTATEMENT OF INCOME UNDER S.56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT IS NOT S USTAINABLE IN LAW. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER DID NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE PLEA RA ISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE FIRST APPEAL. THE CIT(A ) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS THAT AMOUNT O F ADDITION OF RS.9,50,946/- UNDER S. 56(2)(VII)(B) MAY BE AVAILAB LE IN FUTURE UNDER ITA NO.2849/AHD/17 [VISHNUBHAI M. DESAI VS. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 3 - S.49(4) OF THE ACT AS AND WHEN THE CAPITAL GAIN ARI SES ON TRANSFER OF LAND UNDER PURCHASE. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE: 3. CONCLUSION:- THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CAREFU LLY CONSIDERED. HOWEVER, THE SAME IS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE. AS PER P ROVISION OF SECTION 56(2) OF THE IT ACT, THE FOLLOWING INCOME SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER COURSE, NAMELY ................ (VIIB) ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY:- (I) WITHOUT CONSIDERATION, THE STAMP DUTY V ALUE OF WHICH EXCEEDS FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES, THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY. (II) FOR A CONSIDERATION WHICH IS LESS THAN T HE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY AN AMOUNT EXCEEDING FIFTY THOUSA ND RUPEES. THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY AS EXCEEDS SUCH CONSIDERATION................. 4. AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE STAMP DUTY VALUE FOR THE PROPERTIES PURCHASED WITH OTHER CO-OWNERS WORKS OUT TO RS.9,36 ,79,593/- WHEREAS, THE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN NEVER CHALLENGED THI S ADDITION BUT THE AO HAD REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE ME APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE YOUR HON OR THE APPELLANT SEEKS TO MAKE WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON LEGAL ASPECTS THE ARG UMENTS MADE UNDER DIFFERENT PROPOSITIONS IN THIS SUBMISSION ARE WITHO UT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. THE AO HAD ERRED IN REJECTING DIFFERENCE CLA IM UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY VIRTUE OF DEEMING FI CTION OF SECTION-49(4) R.W.S 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961, BEING GROUND NO.1. II. THE APPELLANT HAD ARGUED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISS ION PROVIDED TO AO THAT THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 56(2)(VII) WOULD HA VE DIRECT LINKAGE WITH COST OF ASSET AND THEREFORE, THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AGAINST LAND SOLD WOULD BE INCREASED TO THAT EXTENT AS PER SECTION 49(4) READ WITH SECTION 54B O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE THE SEC TION 49(4) FOR THE READY REFERENCE OF YOUR HONOR. '49(4) WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANS FER OF A PROPERTY, THE VALUE OF WHICH HAS BEER, SUBJECT TO I NCOME-TAX UNDER CLAUSE (VII) [OR CLAUSE (VIIA)] OF SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 56, THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF SUCH PROPERTY SHALL BE DEEME D TO BE THE VALUE WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SAID CLAUSE (VII) [OR CLAUSE (VIIA)]' III. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IT IS CLEARLY UNDER STOOD FROM THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THAT IT IS NOT REQU IRED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B IN INCOME TAX RETURN ITSELF BUT E XEMPTION IS DIRECT AND HAVING CLEAR LINKAGE WITH TOTAL COST OF ASSET. THE AO HAD NEVER CHALLENGED THE FACTS OF DEEMING FICTION OF 49(4) IN ITS REASON ING OF REJECTION OF DIFFERENCE CLAIM OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT, BEING G ROUND NO.2; ITA NO.2849/AHD/17 [VISHNUBHAI M. DESAI VS. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 4 - IV. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO NO TE HERE THAT THE AO HAD NEVER CHALLENGED ABOVE FACTS AND THE STAND TAKE N BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS ENTIRE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESS EE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LAW THAT BY INSERTING DEEMING FICTION OF SECTION 49(4), THE VALUE OF ADDITION TO BE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFIC ER UNDER SECTION 56(2)(VII) SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE VALUE WHICH NE EDS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALONG WITH COST OF PURCHASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN AND THE COST OF NEW ASSET SHALL BE INC REASED TO THE EXTENT OF ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. V THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THERE IS DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN SECTION 49(4) OF THE ACT COST OF ASSET AND COST OF ASSET WH ICH IS REQUIRED (O BE CONSIDERED WHILE CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 5 4B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 AND THEREFORE THE APPELLANT REQUEST THAT THE CORRESPONDING AMOUNT OF ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED AND COST OF CAPITAL ASSET SHOULD BE INCREAS ED WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN, QUOTING JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF M/S. GOETZ (INDIA) LIMITED VS. CIT 284 ITR 223 AS THERE IS NO RELATION OF AMENDMENT IN INCOME TAX RETURN BUT TO G IVE THE EFFECT OF DEEMING FICTION IN CLAIM OF EXEMPTION WHILE DETERMI NING COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN AND THE JUDGMENT RELATES TO ONLY 'DEDU CTION' AND NOT 'EXEMPTION', BEING GROUND NO. 3; VII. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RELIED UPON AFORESAI D JUDGMENT WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT SUITABLE IN THIS CASE AS THE APPELLANT IS SEEKING EXEMPTION AND NOT DEDUCTION, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE DEDUC TION MAY BE SHOWN IN INCOME TAX RETURN WHEN IT IS TO BE FILED. HOWEVER, THE CONDITION TO SHOW EXEMPTION IS NOT NECESSARY TO BE SHOWN IN INCOME TA X RETURN WHEN IT IS FILED AS THERE IS CLEAR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEDUCTIO N AND EXEMPTION. THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCT ION IS FIRST INCLUDED IN THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME AND THEN DEDUCTED FROM IT TO ARRIVE AT THE NET INCOME BUT IT IS NOT SO IN THE CASE OF EXEMPTION. T HE EXEMPTION AMOUNT IS NOT CONSIDERED AS A PART OF TOTAL INCOME AND THE SA ME SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED DIRECTLY FROM THE PART OF GRO SS TOTAL INCOME. VII. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS, THE APPELLANT CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE CASE LAW MENTIONED IN PARA 4 WILT NOT BE A PPLICABLE TO THE CURRENT CASE AND THEREFORE, THE BENEFIT OF ADDITION IN COST OF ASSET SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FOR CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN AND WHILE DETERMINING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OTHER WISE IT WOULD BE DOUBLE TAXATION ON THE PART OF APPELLANT WHEREIN HE HAD ALREADY ADMITTED ADDITION U/S 56 AND THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT WOULD REQUIRE TO PAY TAX ON ADDITIONAL AMOUNT AND CAPITAL GAIN TAX ON THE SAME VALUE AGAIN IF CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ACCEPTED BY YOUR HONOR. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE REQUEST YOUR HONOR THAT THE APPEAL MAY PL EASE BE ALLOWED ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 2.3. THE SECOND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT DATED 0 8/09/2017 BEFORE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD IS AS UNDER:- A. THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PAS SED UNDE, SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY INCOME TAX OFFICER. WARD-1 (1) (1). AHMEDABAD (THE AO), IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2014-15 VIDE THIS ORDER, HE HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.9,50,946/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.20,29,27 0/- FOR THE REASONS AS SPECIFIED IN THE BODY OF THE ORDER. THE APPELLANT H AD NEVER CHALLENGED ITA NO.2849/AHD/17 [VISHNUBHAI M. DESAI VS. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 5 - THIS ADDITION BUT THE AO HAD REJECTED THE ADDITIONA L CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE YOUR HONOR. THE APPELLANT HEREWITH MAKE ADDITIONAL WRITT EN SUBMISSION ON LEGAL ASPECTS AS REQUIRED BY YOUR HONOR. THE ARGUME NTS MADE UNDER DIFFERENT PROPOSITIONS WERE ALREADY MADE UNDER PREV IOUS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE APPELLANT HEREWITH PROVIDE COMPARA TIVE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME AND ATTACHED ORIGINAL & REVISED COMPUT ATION OF TOTAL INCOME FOR READY REFERENCE OF YOUR HONOR. B. SUBMISSION OF COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME AS REQUIRED BY YOUR HONOR : THE APPELLANT HAD ARGUED IN THEIR PREVIOUS WRITTE N SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 56(2)(VI I) WOULD HAVE DIRECT LINKAGE WITH COST OF ASSET AND THEREFORE THE EXEMPT ION CLAIM UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AGAINST LAND SOLD W OULD BE INCREASED TO THAT EXTENT AS PER SECTION 49(4) READ WITH SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE COMP UTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AFTER HAVING EFFECT OF ADDITION UNDER SECTIO N 56(2) AND ENHANCED EXEMPTION BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 49(4) FOR READY REFE RENCE OF YOUR HONOR. THE APPELLANT HEREWITH REPRODUCED COMPARATIVE STATE MENT OF COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AFTER INCORPORATING EFFECT AS MENTI ONED ABOVE. COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME SR. NO. HEADS OF INCOME (PARTICULARS) ORIGINAL STATEMENT OF INCOME REVISED STATEMENT OF INCOME (AS PER STAND TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT) 1 CAPITAL GAIN 26750129 26750129 - LESS. EXEMPTION U/S 54B (24720859) (25671805) NET CAPITAL GAIN 2029270 1078324 2 INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES -INTEREST INCOME ON SB A/C 32372 32372 -INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSIT 6930 6930 -ADDITION MADE U/S 56(2)(VII)(B) - 950945 TOTAL IFOS 39302 990248 > GROSS TOTAL INCOME 2068572 2068572 LESS. INCOME CHARGEABLE FOR SPECIAL RATES (2029270) (1078324) INCOME CHARGEABLE FOR NORMAL RATES 39302 990248 > DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A LESS. U/S 80C (LIP) (77486) (77486) LESS. U/S 80D (MEDICLAIM) (4989) (4989) LESS. U/S 80TTA (10000) (10000) ITA NO.2849/AHD/17 [VISHNUBHAI M. DESAI VS. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 6 - > NET TAXABLE INCOME NIL 897773 AGRICULTURE INCOME 595760 595760 ADD . INCOME CHARGEABLE FOR SPECIAL RATES 2029270 1078324 TOTAL INCOME 2625030 2571860 > COMPUTATION OF TAX PAYABLE TAX INCOME CHARGEABLE FOR NORMAL RATES NIL 278056 NET INCOME CHARGEABLE FOR SPECIAL RATES 365854 215665 LESS. RELIEF ON AGRI. INCOME (89152) EDU. CESS & HIGHER EDU. CESS 10976 12137 GROSS TAX PAYABLE 376830 416709 > TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TDS ON TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY (418470) (418470) TAX REFUNDABLE (41640) (1761) C. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS, THE APPELLANT TH EREFORE REQUEST YOUR HONOR THAT THE APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE'. 2.3. I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE APPE LLANT'S WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSES HAS PURCHA SED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEING AGRICULTURE LAND BELOW THE JANTRI RATE. IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE, AMOUNT OF RS.9,50.946/-(SHARE OF THE APPELLANT) WAS REQUIR ED TO BE TAXED U/S.56(VII)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 UNDER TH E HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE. THE APPELLANT HAD NEVER CHALLENGED TH IS ADDITION BUT THE AO HAD REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL. THE APPELLAN T HAD ARGUED THAT THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 56(2)(VII) WOULD HAVE DIRECT LINKAGE WITH COST OF ASSET AND THEREFORE THE EXEMPTION CLAIM UNDER SECTI ON 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AGAINST LAND SOLD WOULD BE INCREASED TO TH AT EXTENT AS PER SECTION 49(4} READ WITH SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 2.4. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED SUB-SECTION (4) T O SECTION 49 PRESCRIBING COST OF ACQUISITION WITH REFERENCE TO CERTAIN MODES OF ACQUISITION IT STATES THAT WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFE R OF A PROPERTY, THE VALUE OF WHICH HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX UNDER CLAUSE (VII) OR CLAUSE (VITA) OF SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 56, THE COST O F ACQUISITION OF SUCH PROPERTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE VALUE WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ITA NO.2849/AHD/17 [VISHNUBHAI M. DESAI VS. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 7 - ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SAID CLAUSE (VII) O R CLAUSE (VITA). IT MEANS THAT IN CASE THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY HAS ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY AS CAPITAL ASSET, THE LEGISLATURE HAS PRESCRIBED THE PROVISION FOR COST STEP-UP AVAILABLE TO THE BUYER/TRANSFEREE FOR THE PURPOSE O F CALCULATING CAPITAL GAIN AT A LATER DATE WHEN SUCH PROPERTY IS SOLD / T RANSFERRED BY SUCH PERSON. PROVISION, SUCH AS SUB-SECTION (4) TO SECTI ON 49 WOULD MEAN THAT COST STEP-UP SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PERSON ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING CAPITAL GAIN WHEN SUCH PROPERTY IS TRAN SFERRED AT A LATER DATE AS CAPITAL ASSET. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, DEDUCTION O N THE ENHANCED VALUE WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR THE DEDUCTION UNDER 54B O F THE ACT IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT IS DISMIS SED. 6. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. BEFORE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A PETIT ION UNDER RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES WITH AFFIDAVIT FOR ADMISSION OF ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCES. AS PER THE PETITION, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS ADMISSION OF T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON AN ALTOGETHER NEW PLEA THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND PURCH ASED ARE RURAL LANDS AND THEREFORE ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF CAPIT AL ASSET UNDER S.2(14) R.W.S. 50C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS THUS CALLE D UPON THE TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF ADDITIONAL EVI DENCES SO PLACED. WE DO NOT FIND ANY COMPELLING REASON IN THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF RULE 29 OF ITAT RUL ES, 1963. RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES PROVIDES FOR STRINGENT STIPULATIONS FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SPECIFIE D ANY COGENT REASON AS TO WHY SUCH FACTS CONSIDERED RELEVANT BY THE ASSESS EE WERE NOT PLACED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT THE POINT WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES A ND THE ISSUE INVOLVES EXAMINATION OF FACTUAL ASPECT. WE ARE NOT INCLINED FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE REQUIRING FACTUAL VERIFICATIONS AT THIS BELATED STAGE AFTER LAPSE OF MORE THAN 5 YEARS. THEREFORE, WE DE CLINE TO ENTERTAIN THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 8. CONTINUING FURTHER, THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSES SEE POINTED OUT THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B)(II) OF THE ACT HAS COME INTO PLAY W.E.F. 01.04.2014 AND WOULD THEREFORE APPLY TO THE TRANSAC TIONS WHICH HAVE OCCURRED AFTER THAT DATE ONLY AS THE AMENDMENT IS P ROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. THE LEARNED AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 49(4) OF THE ACT DOES NOT ITA NO.2849/AHD/17 [VISHNUBHAI M. DESAI VS. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 8 - REQUIRE TRANSFER OF THE SAME PROPERTY FOR THE PURPO SE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER S.54B OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AR NEXT POINTE D OUT THAT A PART OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS PURCHASED IN JULY 2014 CONCER NING AY 2015-16 AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT MATTER OF ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2014-15. 9. THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. THE TAXABILITY OF DEEMED INCOME UNDER S.56(2)(VII)(B)(II) OF THE A CT IS IN QUESTION. THE AO HAS APPLIED THE AFORESAID PROVISION AFTER COMPAR ING THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE LAND VIS--VIS THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AND ADDED THE DIFFERENCE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN PROPORTION TO HIS SHAR E IN LAND HOLDING. THE CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE AFORESAID ACTION OF THE AO. WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD . SECTION 49(4) OF THE ACT CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT THE BENEFIT OF THE INFLAT ED COST OF ACQUISITION IN VIEW OF THE DEEMING PROVISIONS UNDER S. 56(2)(VII)( B)(II) OF THE ACT WOULD BE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SALE OF THE ASSET AND C APITAL GAINS WILL BE ACCORDINGLY REDUCED TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH INCREASE IN DEEMED CONSIDERATION. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN APPROPRIATE RELIEF IN THIS REG ARD. WE THUS SEE NO WRONG IN ACTION OF THE CIT(A). THE PLEA OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IS RURAL LAND WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE US. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON FACTUAL ASPECTS, WE DECLINE TO ENTERTAIN THE AFORESAID NEW PLEA. WE AL SO FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS INAPPLICABILITY OF SEC TION 56(2)(VII)(B)(II) OF THE ACT TO THE FY 2013-14 CONCERNING AY 2014-15. THE A FORESAID PROVISION IS APPLICABLE FROM AY 2014-15 AND WOULD THUS APPLY TO TRANSACTIONS CONCERNING FY 2013-14 AS INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATUR E. 11. AS NOTED EARLIER, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AN ALT OGETHER NEW PLEA THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING BLOCK NO. 143 WAS PURCHAS ED IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR, WHICH PLEA WAS NOT TAKEN BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE THUS SEE NO REASON TO ENTERTAIN SUCH PLEA IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. OTHE RWISE ALSO, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 150(1) R.W.S. 153(6) OF THE A CT, THE DIFFERENTIAL ITA NO.2849/AHD/17 [VISHNUBHAI M. DESAI VS. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 9 - INCOME CAN BE ASSESSED IN AY 2014-15 AND THEREFORE THE WHOLE EXERCISE WILL BE REVENUE NEUTRAL. WE, HOWEVER, DO NOT SEEK TO DELINEATE. WE THUS FIND NO MERIT IN ANY OF THE GROUNDS SET UP BY THE A SSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (PRADIP K UMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 11/09/2019 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+#4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11/09/2 019