Kuldeep Singh Sekhon, Fazilka V. The Income Tax Officer, Abohar

ITA 298/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9664 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S KANWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Salary income; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.298(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 PAN: ACNPS9861J SH. KULDIP SINGH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, C/O FAZILKA CO-OP. SUGAR MILLS, WARD 2(4), ABOHAR. FAZILKA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH.P.N.ARORA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SH. S.S. KANWAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 14/07/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01/08/2016 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM: THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2011-12, CONTENDING THEREIN THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY THE AO BY ADOPTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF LAND FOR THE F.Y. 1981-82 AT RS.150 0/- PER MARLA FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISIT ION, AT THE SAME TIME IGNORING THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A COMPARABLE PIECE OF LAND WAS OF THE RATE OF RS.2125/- PER MARLA. ITA NO.298/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 2 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF FAZILKA CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS AND DREW HIS SALAR Y FROM THE SAID ORGANIZATION. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.2,02,811/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.3,50,000/-. AGAINST THE SALARY INCOME, DEDUCTION OF RS.46,067/- WAS CLAIMED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VI-A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS SEEN TO HAVE MADE A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.28 LAKHS IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAIN ED WITH HDFC BANK, THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME WAS SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS TO EXAMINE THE SOURCES OF SAID DEPOSIT AND AN ORDER WA S PASSED ON 28.03.2014 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(3) O F THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.31,48,685/-, WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.1,56,7 40/-, RAISING A TAX DEMAND OF RS.8,94,200/-. 3. BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE RESIDENTIAL LAND IN QUESTION WA S TO BE ADOPTED AT RS.1500/- PER MARLA. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), A SALE D EED, IN WHICH, THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS OF RS.2125/- PER MARLA; THAT, HO WEVER, THE LD. CIT(A), IGNORING THE SAME, HELD THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION ITA NO.298/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 3 WAS TO BE ADOPTED AT RS.1500/- PER MARLA. ATTENTION IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN DRAWN TO PARAS 4 & 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE IMP UGNED ORDER. 6. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT. PARAS 4 & 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER READ, AS FOLLOWS: 4. A COPY OF THE SAID REMAND REPORT WAS MADE AVAIL ABLE TO THE APPELLANT FOR REBUTTAL. IN RESPONSE, THE APPELLANT FILED ANOTHER SALE DEED IN WHICH THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS.2125/- PER MARLA. 5. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED BOTH, THE REMAND REPORT AS WELL AS THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS, IT IS HELD THAT IN THE INT EREST OF JUSTICE, THE FMV OF THE IMPUGNED RESIDENTIAL LAND IN QUESTION BE ADOPTED AT RS.1,500/- PER MARLA OF LAND. THE AO IS, THUS, DIRE CTED TO RECOMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCORDINGLY. IT IS ORD ERED ACCORDINGLY. 7. THUS, EVIDENTLY, THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE SALE DEED OF A COMPARABLE PIECE OF LAND, AS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, AS PER WHICH SALE DEED, THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS OR RS.2125/- PER MARLA. HOWEVER, IN THE CONCLUDING PORTION OF THE IM PUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OMITTED TO TAKE THE SAID SALE DEED INTO CONSIDERATION, THEREBY CAUSING PREJUDICE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN T HE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE F ILE OF THE LD. CIT(A), TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ON CONSID ERING THE AFORESAID SALE DEED PERTAINING TO THE COMPARABLE PIECE OF LAN D, AS FILED BY THE ITA NO.298/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 4 ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEE SHALL, NO DOUBT, COOPERATE IN THE FRESH PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/08/ 2016. SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER /SKR/ DATED: 01/08/2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. KULDEEP SINGH SEKHON, FAZILKA. 2. THE ITO, WARD-2(4), ABOHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.