CHANDRE PRAKSH ARORA, Alwar V. ITO, Alwar

ITA 315/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99478 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C; 54F

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES SMC, JAIPUR JH IH-DS-CALY] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 315/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 CHANDRE PRAKASH ARORA, PLOT NO. 82, SHANTI KUNJ, ALWAR (RAJ) CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABEPA 9964 E VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 316/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 BHAGWANTI DEVI, PLOT NO. 82, SHANTI KUNJ, ALWAR (RAJ) CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACEPS 0276 N VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : NONE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 05/11/2015 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/11/2015 ITA 315 & 316/JP/2015_ CHANDRE PRAKASH ARORA VS. ITO 2 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, A.M. BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARISE AGAI NST THE ORDERS DATED 23/02/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A), ALWAR FOR A.Y. 2010-11. 2. SINCE BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REL ATE TO COMMON ISSUE, THEREFORE, THEY ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDE R. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES. I, THE REFORE, DECIDE TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEALS AFTER HEARING THE LD DR. 4. AFTER HEARING THE LD DR AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONWITH ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW, I NOTED THAT I N THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) ON THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY HIM TO THE EXTEN T OF RS. 3,45,593/- FOR HIS HALF SHARE. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE PLOT WITH OTHER CO-OWNER AT RS. 14 LACS AND HIS HALF SHARE WAS RS. 7.00 LACS. THE VALUE OF THE SAME U/S 50C OF THE ACT HAS BEEN TAKEN AT RS. 12,72,610/ - FOR THE HALF SHARE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN THOUGH NOTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS MADE THE INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 19,73,609/- ALONGWIT H THE OTHER CO-OWNER ON THE PURCHASE OF THE PLOT AND CONSTRUCTION THEREO N WITHIN PERMISSIBLE TIME SO AS TO MAKE HIM LEVIABLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 5 4F OF THE ACT. ONE HALF SHARE THEREOF BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DENIED THE ITA 315 & 316/JP/2015_ CHANDRE PRAKASH ARORA VS. ITO 3 DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEPOSIT THE CAPITAL GAIN IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT BEFORE THE DATE OF FILING O F RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWE D THE EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT FOR RS. 3,45,593/- IN THE HANDS OF THE A SSESSEE AS WELL AS IN THE HANDS OF OTHER CO-OWNER, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). THIS IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT IN THIS CASE, THE CONSIDERATIO N RECEIVED ACTUALLY WAS ONLY RS. 14 LACS BUT DUE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 50C, THE SAME WAS TAKEN AT RS. 25,45,220/-, ONE HALF SHARE THEREOF BE LONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY RECEIVED RS. 7.00 LACS THE SAME AMOUNT STAND INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND AS WELL AS HOUS E. THEREFORE, I DO AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE LD CIT(A) THAT IT WAS IMPRACTICABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO DEPOSIT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STAMP VALUE AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AS I N FACT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT RECEIVED THE DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION ACTUALLY THEREFORE, THE A SSESSEE, IN MY OPINION, CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO DEPOSIT THE DEEMED CONSIDERAT ION. THE ASSESSEE CAN BE EXPECTED ONLY TO DEPOSIT THE ACTUAL CONSIDER ATION. THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION, I NOTED HAS ALREADY BEEN INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PURCHASING THE OTHER PLOT AS WELL AS IN THE CONSTRUC TION. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT CORR ECT IN LAW IN ITA 315 & 316/JP/2015_ CHANDRE PRAKASH ARORA VS. ITO 4 SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER DE NYING THE EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 54F OF THE ACT. I, ACCORDINGLY, SE T ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,45,593/-. 4.1 SIMILAR FINDING AS STATED ABOVE SHALL APPLY IN THE CASE OF BHAGWANTI DEVI MUTATIS MUNTANDIS. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEES STA ND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/11/2015. SD/- IH-DS-CALY (P.K. BANSAL) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 06 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- (I) SHRI CHANDRE PRAKASH ARORA, ALWAR. (II) SMT. BHAGWANTI DEVI, ALWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 2(3), ALWAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 315 & 316/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR