Puneet SIngh Chawla, Karnal V. ITO, Karnal

ITA 3271/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0200 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY
• Assessee Lawyers: R K GROVER; Y P GROVER

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3271/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 PUNEET SINGH CHAWLA, VS. ITO, WARD 4, 16/491, ANANDPUR COLONY, KARNAL OP. SHAM NAGAR, KARNAL GIR / PAN:BMPTS5657P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI Y.P. GROVER & SHRI R. K. GROVER, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIKRAM SAHAY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 04.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.06.2015 ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 02.03.2012. THE APPEAL WAS EARLIER HEAD ON 0 7.02.2013 AND THE SAME WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. HOWEVER, ON AN APPLICATIO N FILED BY ASSESSEE, EX- PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS RECALLED VIDE ORDER DATED 20.01.2015 AND THE MATTER WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON MERITS. 2. LD. A.R. AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE O F ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 07.07.2014 IN THE CASE OF HARVINDER SINGH CHAWLA IN I.T.A. NO. 3272/DEL/2012 AND IN THIS RESP ECT, INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF ORDER PLACED IN THE RECORD. LD. A.R . SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE TRIBUNAL, HAD REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE OFFICE OF A.O. FOR CONSIDERATION ITA NO.3271/DEL/2012 2 OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON BREEDING, DEVELOPMENT OF TR EES FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF TREES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHERS INCLUDING SHRI HARVINDER SINGH CHAWLA HAD SOLD THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE TREES STANDING ON SUCH LAND WAS ALSO SOLD THROUGH S EPARATE AGREEMENTS. THE A.O. HAD TREATED THE SALE OF TREES AS PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN AND HAS NOT ALLOWED THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON BREADING AND DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH TREES FROM THE SAL E PROCEEDS OF TREES. HE SUBMITTED THAT FOR CONSIDERATION OF SIMILAR ISSUE O F ALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES, THE TRIBUNAL HAD REMITTED BACK THE ISSUE TO OFFICE OF A.O. IN THE CASE OF HARVIDNER SINGH CHAWLA. LD. A.R. IN THIS RESPECT HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 5 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 3. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF LAND BUT THE CASE CANNOT BE SET ASIDE TO A .O. FOR VERIFICATION OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE IN AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT S UBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF INCURRING OF ANY EXPENDITURE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE EVEN DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OF INCURRING ANY EXPEN DITURE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ALSO. 4. IN HIS REJOINDER, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND HE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY ACCOUNT S BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT IN EARNING OF INCOME FROM SALE OF TREES, SOME EXPEN DITURE IN THE FORM OF MANUAL LABOUR FOR UPKEEP OF TREES MUS HAVE BEEN INC URRED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUG H THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE ALONG WITH TWO OT HER PERSONS INCLUDING SHRI HARVINDER SINGH CHAWLA, OWNED AGRICULTURAL LAN D MEASURING 21 BIGHAS 12 BISWAS AND THE SAID LAND WAS FITTED WITH TUBE WE LL MOTOR ELECTRIC ITA NO.3271/DEL/2012 3 CONNECTION ETC AND THE SAID LAND ALONG WITH ABOVE E QUIPMENTS WAS SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. BESIDES THE A BOVE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE SEPARATE AGREEMENT HAD SOLD TREES STANDING ON THIS LAND AND RECEIVED SEPARATE SALE CONSIDERATION. THE A.O. TREATED THE SALE PROC EEDS OF TREES AS A PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF LAND AND INCLUDED THE SAME IN SALE CONSIDERATION FOR CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ACTION OF A.O. THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NO.2 IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE ACT ION OF A.O. IN NOT ALLOWING EXPENSES INCURRED ON BREEDING AND DEVELOPM ENT OF SUCH TREES. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNER OF SUCH LAND, THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 07.07.2014 HAD REMITTED BACK THE ISSUE TO THE OFFICE OF A.O. FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT O F SUCH EXPENSES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OWNER OF THE SAME LAND, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE OF ALLOWING EXPENSES CAN BE CONSIDERED BY A.O. ON SOME REASONABLE BASIS. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.2 IS RESTORED BACK TO THE OFFI CE OF A.O. FOR RECONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY ARG UMENT IN RESPECT OF GROUNDS NO.1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSE D AS NOT PRESSED. HOWEVER, GROUND NO.2 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. 6. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH JUNE, 2015. SD./- SD./- ( I. C. SUDHIR) (T.S. KAPO OR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 11.06.2015 SP ITA NO.3271/DEL/2012 4 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 9/6 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 10,10, SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 11/6 SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 11/6 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 11/6 SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER