CHANDRAKANT GORDHANBHAI PATEL HUF , DABHOI V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax circle-1(3), Vadodara, Vadodara

ITA 485/AHD/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0600 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-07-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRISANJAYJAIN
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

THEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD“SMC”BENCH Before:ShriRamitKochar,AccountantMember ShriChandrakant GordhanbhaiPatel HUF, AtBhikhankui, PODabhoi, Dabhoi-391110 DistrictVadodra, Gujarat. PAN:AADHC6657E (Appellant) v. TheD.C.I.T, Circle-1(3), AayakarBhavan, RaceCourse, Vadodara- 390007,Gujarat (Respondent) Assesseeby:None(WrittenSubmissionfiled bytheassessee) Revenueby:ShriSanjayJain,Sr.D.R. Dateofhearing:10-07-2024 Dateofpronouncement:31-07-2024 आदेश/ORDER ThisappealinITANo.485/Ahd/2024forassessment year2012-13filedbytheassesseewithIncomeTaxAppellate Tribunal,AhmedabadBench,Ahmedabadhasarisenfromthe ITANo.485/Ahd/2024 AssessmentYear2012-13 I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 2 appellateorderdated24-01-2024passedbyld.CIT(A/NFAC, Delhiu/s.250oftheIncome-taxAct,1961inDIN&OrderNo. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060081272(1),whichhasin turnarisenfromtheassessmentorderdated23-12-2019 passedbytheAssessingOfficeru/s.147r.w.s.144ofthe Income-taxAct1961. 2.Thegroundsofappealraisedbytheassesseewiththe IncomeTaxAppellateTribunal,AhmedabadBench, Ahmedabadinappealmemo,readsasunder:- “...UnderthefactsandcircumstancesofthecaseCITAppealhas erredin(a)confirmingtheassessmentorderwhichisbadinlawas theassessmentwasreopenedonwrongreasonsandfacts(b) Assessmentwasmadewithoutissuingstatutorynoticerequiredto beissuedU/s143(2)oftheITActand(c)alsobadinlawonfacts andwithoutadjudicatingtheissuesraisedandnotfollowing bindingjudicialdecisionsrelieduponbytheappellant.The appellantreserveshisrighttoaddorvarythegroundsofappeal beforethefinalhearingofthisappealpetition...” 3.ThebrieffactofthecasearethattheassesseeisanHUF, andreceivedinterestincomeofRs.29,87,378/-fromthe ExecutiveEngineerSardarSarovaraNarmadaNigamLtd., andthesaidpayerhasdeductedincometaxatsourceof Rs.2,98,737/-onthesaidreceipts.Theassesseedidnotfiled itsreturnofincomewithRevenueu/s139(asitwillbeseen laterthattheassesseehasclaimedthatitdulyfileditsreturn ofincomewithdepartmentu/s139videacknowledgment I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 3 number058280313050302dated28.03.2013,butthe Revenuehasdisputedthefilingofthesaidreturnofincome). ThecaseoftheassesseewasreopenedbyRevenue,and noticeu/s.148dated31.03.2019wasissuedbytheAOtothe assessee.Inresponsetothesaidnotice,theassesseefiled itsreplyon01.11.2019statingthatearlierreturnofincome filedu/s139fortheyearunderconsiderationmaybe consideredasreturnofincomeinresponsetonoticeissuedby theAOu/s148.ThereasonsrecordedbytheAOforreopening oftheassessmentwerefurnishedtotheassesseeon 03.06.2019.StatutorynoticeswereissuedbytheAO u/s.142(1)oftheActtotheassessee,fromtimetotime,during thecourseofreassessmentproceedings,buttheassesseeonly filedpartreply.TheAOinvokedprovisionsofsection144in abletoproceedtoframebestjudgmentassessment,and ShowCausenoticedated10/12/2019wasissuedbytheAO totheassesseeastowhyreassessmentshouldnotbe concludedu/s.144oftheActex-parteonthebasisofmaterial availableonrecord.Theassesseefiledwrittensubmissions beforetheAOinresponsetoSCN,asunder: “ i.Reasonsofreopeningofassessmentdated03.06.2019has notbeenreceivedtoitatthattime.However,itfurtherstatedthat reasonsofreopeninghavebeenseenbyhimonline. ii.Thereopeningofassessmentisbasedonthebeliefthathe hasnotsubmittedreturnofincomeandassessedaspersame.He I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 4 hasdisclosedallfactsregardingreceiptsofincome&TDSandthere isnofailureofthepartoftheassessee. iii.Theamountinquestionisreceivedforthelandownedbythe HUFofallthebrothersandalltheco-ownershavebeenfiledtheir returnofincomeandhavebeenassessedontheirrespectiveshares. iv.Theinterestreceiptsshouldbetaxedinthehandsofthe respectivebeneficiaryevenTDSwasdeductedinthenameofthe assessee.Therefore,thereisabsolutenojurisdictionbothinfactand lawoftaxingreceiptsinmyname.HehasclaimedthattheTDS refundreceivedbyhim,hasbeengiventothemequally,Hefurther arguedthattherearevariousjudicialdecisionsofHighcourtand SupremeCourtthatinterestawardedbytheCourtordersin acquisitionoflandispartofawardorcompensation,soitiscapital receiptsandnotrevenuereceipts.Hence,nottaxedhere.Healso citedthedecisionofHon'bleITATDelhiBenchGinthecaseof OpenderSinghVirkparveshKumarSharmaVsITOWd-2.Karnalin supportofhisclaimandacopyofsaidjudgmentoftheITATwas enclosedwithitsreply.” 3.2TheAOrejectedthecontentionoftheassesseevide reassessmentorderdated23.12.2019passedu/s147 readwithSection144ofthe1961Act,byholdingas under: i.Onperusalorrecords,itisobservedthatreasonsofreopening havebeenprovidedtotheassesseevidethisofficeletterdated 03.06.2019andsamewassenttotheassesseeonthesamedayby online.Hence,reasonsforreopeninghasbeenprovidedtothe assessec. ii.Ihavecheckedthereturnofincomeoftheassesseeonthesystem anditisobservedthatnosuchreturnofincomefiledbythe assesseefortheyearunderconsideration.Hence,argumentofthe assesseeisnotcorrect.Hence,itisheldthatnoreturnofincome wasfiledbytheassesseefortheA.Y.2012-13, iii.Theassesseeclaimedthatithasreceivedtheinterestincomein formofcompensationofthelandandinterestonthecompensation/ I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 5 enhancedcompensationcannotbetaxedbecausetheHon'bleITAT Delhihasheldthatinterestreceivedbytheassesseeonenhanced compensationforacquisitionoftheagriculturelandbyGovernment isExemptfromtaxu/s10(37)oftheI.T.Act,1961becauseitisa capitalreceiptsandnottherevenuereceipts.Onthisissue,itis statedthattheasseascedidnotfilecopyofsaledeed/courtorders fromwhichitcanbeverifiedthatsaidamountofinterestisnatureof receiptsorotherwise.Whetherthesaidamountofinterestwas actuallyreceivedfromthecompensation/enhancedcompensation onthesaleofland.Inabsenceofsaledeed,courtorderoranyother evidence,itisnotprovedthatsaidinterestincomeofRs.29,87,378 wasreceivedfromtheinterestofcompensationorotherwise.Even noiotaoftheevidenceisavailableontherecordsfromwhichitcan beascertainedthatwhatlandinquestionwassoldandonwhich landthecompensationwasreceivedbytheassessee.Inabsenceof completedetailsandevidencesitisnotprovedthesocalledamount ofinterestwasactuallycompensationorenhancecompensationor otherwise.Further,theassesseeclaimedthatrespectivesharesin compensationwasshownbytheotherco-ownersintheirreturnof income.Butneitherthedetailsoftheco-ownersweregivennorcopy oftheirreturnofincomewasfiledinsupportofhisclaim.Hence, claimoftheassesseeisnotproved.Ihavegonethroughthedecision ofHon'bleITATcitedbytheassesseeanditisrelatingtothe taxationofthecompensation/enhancedcompensation.But,instant casethereisnoevidenceinrespectofcompensation/enhanced compensationoftheland.Factsofthecitedcaseandinstantcase areentirelydifferentfromeachother.Hence,notapplicablehere. Consideringtheabovefacts,itisheldthatsaidinterestincomeis notrelatedtoanycompensationoflandandtheassesseedidnot declaretheinterestincomeofRs.29,87,378/-initsreturnofincome andsaidamountisrequiredtobeadded.Therefore,Imakean additionofRs.29,87,378/-onaccountofconcealedinterestincome andsameisaddedinthetotalincomeoftheassesee. 4.Aggrieved,theassesseefiledfirstappealbeforethe Ld.CIT(A),whodismissedtheappealoftheassessee,by observingasunder: 7.APPELLATEFINDINGS: I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 6 7.1TheonlyGroundoftheappellantpertainstotheadditionof Rs.29,87,378/-madebyAOonaccountofinterestreceivedon enhancedcompensationafteracquisitionofland.TheLd.AOvide passingotherorderu/s147r.w.s.144oftheAct,1961on 23.12.2019noticedthatappellanthasreceivedtheinterestofthe saidamountfromSardarSaroverNarmadaNigamLimited.TheLd. AOfurthernotedthatthesaidamountwasshownundertheHUF statusbutnoreturnwasfiled.Theappellantrepliedthequarriesof theAOon13.12.2019,AftergoingthroughtheserepliestheLd.AO gavehisfindingsinPara3ofhisorder,thesameisreproducedas under: "3.Ihavecarefullyconsideredthewrittensubmissionofthe assesseeaswellasfactsofthecaseandmyobservationsonthe issueinvolvedareasunder- 1.Onperusalofrecords,itisobservedthatreasonsofreopening havebeenprovidedtotheassesseevidethisofficeletterdated 03.06.2019andsamewassenttotheassesseeonthesamedayby online.Hence,reasonsforreopeninghasbeenprovidedtothe assessee. (ii)Ihavecheckedthereturnofincomeoftheassesseeonthe systemanditisobservedthatnosuchreturnofincomefiledbythe assesseefortheyearunderconsideration.Hence,argumentofthe assesseeisnotcorrect.Hence,itisheldthatnoreturnofincome wasfiledbytheassesseefortheA.Y.2012-13. (iii)Theassesseeclaimedthatithasreceivedtheinterestincomein formofcompensationofthelandandinterestonthecompensation/ enhancedcompensationcannotbetaxedbecausetheHon'bleITAT, Delhihasheldthatinterestreceivedbytheassesseeonenhanced compensationforacquisitionoftheagriculturelandbyGovernment isexemptfromtaxu/s10(37)oftheITAct1961becauseitisa capitalreceiptsandnottherevenuereceipts.Onthisissue,itis statedthattheassesseedidnotfilecopyofsaledeed/courtorders fromwhichitcanbeverifiedthatsaidamountofinterestisnatureof receiptsorotherwise.Whetherthesaidamountofinterestwas actuallyreceivedfromthecompensation/enhancedcompensation onthesaleofland.Inabsenceofsaledeed,courtorderoranyother evidence,itisnotprovedthatsaidinterestincomeofRs.29,87,378/- wasreceivedfromtheinterestofcompensationorotherwise.Even noiotaoftheevidenceisavailableontherecordsfromwhichitcan beascertainedthatwhatlandinquestionwassoldandonwhich I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 7 landthecompensationwasreceivedbytheassessee.Inabsenceof completedetailsandevidencesitisnotprovedthesocalledamount ofinterestwasactuallycompensationorenhancecompensationor otherwise.Further,theassesseeclaimedthatrespectivesharesin compensationwasshownbytheotherco-ownersintheirreturnof income.Butneitherthedetailsoftheco-ownersweregivennorcopy oftheirreturnofincomewasfiledinsupportofhisclaim.Hence, claimoftheassesseeisnotproved.Ihavegonethroughthedecision ofHon'bleITATcitedbytheassesseeanditisrelatingtothe taxationofthecompensation/enhancedcompensation.But,instant casethereisnoevidenceinrespectofcompensation/enhanced compensationoftheland.Factsofthecitedcaseandinstantcase areentirelydifferentfromeachother.Hence,notapplicablehere. Consideringtheabovefacts,itisheldthatsaidinterestincomeis notrelatedtoanycompensationoflandandtheassesseedidnot declaretheinterestincomeofRs.29,87,378/-initsreturnofincome andsaidamountisrequiredtobeadded.Therefore,Imakean additionofRs.29,87,376/-onaccountofconcealedinterestincome andsameisaddedinthetotalincomeoftheassessee" 7.2Duringtheappellateproceedings,theappellantraisedthree issues.Thefirstissuerelatetothere-openingofthecaseonwrong reasons(asclaimedbyhim)bysayingthattheLd.AOhasmade errorbysayingthatthereturnwasnotfiled,hence,thebasic premiseofthereasonsrecordedwasvoid.Ihavegonethroughthe issueandholdthatthenoticeu/s147cannotbesetasideonthis groundasitisabona-fidemistakewhichhasnobearingonthe meritsofthecase,themainissueistheconcealmentofabovesaid amountwhichwasnotreflectedbytheappellantinhisreturnfiled underHUFstatus.Thesecondissueraisedbytheappellantisthat thesaidinterestamountpertainstoallfourbrothersoftheappellant andhence,cannotbeaddedinoneheadasdonebytheAO.The appellantclaimedthatthesaidinteresthasbeenshowninthe respectivereturnsofallbrothersbutnoproofinthisregardwas submittedbyhim,thoughtheappellantclaimedthattheproofwas submitted.TheLd.AOhasrightlymadeadditioninthehandsof HUFasthesaidlandoftheappellantpertainstoHUFnottothe individuals.Thethirdissueraisedbytheappellantregardingthe non-taxabilityofthesaidamount.Forthispurpose,theappellant relieduponvariousdecisionsandonedecisionnamelySmt.Kamla Devivs.ITOITANo.1418/Delhi/2022ofA.Y.2012-13isenclosed byhim.Inthesaidjudgmentvariousotherjudgementsarealso mentionedbeforethedateofpronouncementofthisorderon 21.09.2022.Ihavegonethroughthisorderandnoticedthatfacts I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 8 arenotclearlymentionofthesaidcaseandisdifficulttoco-relate withthecaseoftheappellant.Evenifthefactsarerelatable,the decisionoftheHon'bleITATisnotveryclearwr.t.theprovisionsof section145B(1)andsection56(2)(viii)oftheAct,1961.Theappellant failstofurnishanydecisionoftheHon'bleApexCourtonthisissue. TheadditionmadebytheAOisconfirmedandthegroundtakenby theappellantisdismissed. 5.Aggrieved,theassesseehasnowfiledanappealwiththe Tribunal.TheassesseehasfiledPaperBookcontaining57 pages(placedonrecordinfile).Theassesseehasalsofiled writtensubmissionsbeforetheTribunal,andsubmittedin w.s.thatappealmaybeadjudicatedbasedonthecompilation ofdocuments(PB)andwrittensubmissionsfiledbytheassesee beforeITAT.Inthewrittensubmissionsfiledbytheassessee, itismainlycontendedbytheassessee,asfollows: “......... 1)Reopeningoftheassessmentisbasedonwrongfactsand presumptions. 2)Ihadfiledincometaxreturnwhereinallrelevantfactsand issuesnecessarytodeterminethecorrectincomeweredisclosed andsowithoutanytangiblematerialbeforetheAOtoreopen assessmentorIntheabsenceofsurfacingofanyfreshtangible material,initiationofproceedingsu/s147oftheActisbadinlaw. Reassessmentmadeafterfouryearswithoutpointingoutfailureon myparttodisclosematerialfactsisbadinlaw. 3)Thoughreturnofincomewasfilednomandatorynoticeundersec. 143(2)hasbeenissuedduringtheassessment.Sotheassessment isvoid. 4)ReassessmentisdonebythepresentA.ObeingTheDy. CommissionerofIncomeTaxCircle1(3)BarodaotherthantheA.O beingtheIncomeTaxofficerward3(1)Barodawhowashaving jurisdictionovermeandhasmadetheoriginalassessmentonthe I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 9 basisofreturnfiledbymeisbadinlaw.TilldateIhavenotbeen informedregardingchangeofthejurisdiction. 5)Theinterestincomereceivedbymeonenhancedcompensationfor compulsoryacquisitionofagriculturallandbyGovernmentfor SardarSarovarNigamwasexemptfromtaxasheldbyvarious courts. 6)BoththeassessmentorderandCITAppealsorderaremade withoutfollowingbindingdecisions. YourappellantthereforepraysthatconsideringtheCompilationof documentsandreturnsubmissionsthepresentassessmentorder whichisprimafacieperverseandlopsidedmaybequashed. Ishallremainevergratefulforyoursympatheticapproachnatural justice.intheinterestofnaturaljustice.” Theassesseehasalsorelieduponthejudgmentandorderof Hon’bleGujaratHighCourtinthecaseofSunriseEducation Trustv.ITO(E),reportedin(2018)92taxmann.com74(Guj. HC),appellateorderdated07.02.2018passedbyITAT,Jaipur Bench,inNarainDuttSharmav.ITO,reportedin(2018)91 taxmann.com463(JaipurTrib.),judgmentandorderof Hon’bleMadrasHighcourtinthecaseofFivesIndia Engineering&ProjectsPrivateLimitedv.ITO,reportedin (2024)161taxmann.com79(mad.HC),Hon’bleGujaratHigh CourtjudgmentandorderinthecaseofCITv.SukhiniP. Modi,reportedin(2014)52taxmann.com50(GujHC), AppellateOrderdated13.07.2021pronouncedbyITAT, AhmedabadinthecaseofSBGInfrastructureLLPv.DCIT, reportedin(2021)130taxmann.com319(Ahd.Trib.),Hon’ble GujaratHighCourtjudgmentandorderinthecaseofJivraj I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 10 TeaLimited,reportedin(2020)116taxmann.com27(Guj), AppellateorderpassedbyITAT,ChandigarhBench,inthe caseofITOv.ChawliDevi,reportedin(2021)62CCH 0130(Chd.Trib.)andITAT,Raipurdecisioninthecaseof ChwaramDhiwarv.ITO,reportedin(2023)37NYPTTJ 5(RaipurITAT)inITAno.31/RPR/2022,dated28.12.2022. 5.2OntheotherhandtheLd.Sr.DRsubmittedthatthe assesseehasnotfiledreturnofincomeoriginallyu/s.139of theAct.Theassesseehasnotdeclaredinterestincomeearned fromtheenhancedcompensation,andhencethesamewas rightlyaddedbytheAOtotheIncome.Thereassessmentwas rightlyframedbytheAOandconfirmedbyld.CIT(A),and prayersweremadetodismisstheappealfiledbytheassessee. Theld.Sr.DRrelieduponthejudgmentandorderofHon’ble DelhiHighCourtinthecaseofPCITv.inderjitSingh Sodhi(HUF)inITAno.769/2023&CMAppealNo.65057 /2023,dated08.04.2024. 6.Ihaveconsideredthecontentionsoftheassessee(filed videwrittensubmissionsfiledbeforetheBenchalongwith PaperBook(placedonrecordinfile))andalsoofLd.Sr.DR, andperusedthematerialonrecord,includingthecitedcase laws.IhaveobservedthattheRevenueiscontendingthat returnofincomewasneverfiledbytheassesseeoriginallyu/s I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 11 139ofthe1961Act,fortheimpugnedassessmentyear(thisis adisputedissueastothattheassesseeisclaimingthathe dulyfiledreturnonincomefortheimpugnedassessmentyear u/s139on28.03.2013).Theinformationwasreceivedbythe AOfromtheITOWard1(2)(1),VadodraendorsedbyITO, Ward14(1)(1),Vadodaraon12.03.2019thattheassesseehas receivedinterestofRs.29,87,378/-u/s194AandTDSofRs. 2,98,737/-wasalsodeductedfromthesaidinterestincomeby theExecutiveEngineer,SardarSarovarNarmadaNigam Limited.ThecaseoftheassesseewasreopenedbytheAOby invokingprovisionsofSection.147/148oftheActonthe groundthattheassesseehasnotfileditsreturnofincomeu/s 139,andassesseehasnotdeclaredsuchinterestincomeof Rs.29,87,387/-receivedfromSardarSarovarNarmadaNigam Limitedinthereturnofincomealthoughthetaxwasdeducted bySardarSarovarNarmadaNigamLtd..Thereasonswere recordedbytheAOforre-openingoftheassessmentu/s147 on03.06.2019,anditisclaimedbytheAOthatsaidreasons recordedforreopeningoftheassessmentwereduly communicatedtotheassessee,buttheassesseehasdisputed thatsaidreasonsrecordedforreopeningoftheassessmentby theAOu/s147werenevercommunicatedbytheAOtothe assessee,andwereratherseenonlinebytheassessee.The AOissuednoticeu/s148ofthe1961Act,totheassessee.The assesseeonitspartsubmittedthattheoriginalreturnof I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 12 incomefiledbytheassesseeu/s139betreatedasreturnof incomefiledinresponsetonoticeissuedbytheAOu/s148. TheAOhasdisputedthatnoreturnofincomewasoriginally filedbytheassesseeu/s139,whiletheassesseesubmitted beforetheAOthatthereturnofincomewasoriginallyfiledby theassesseeu/s139on28.03.2013inphysicalmodevide acknowledgmentnumber058280313050302.Theassessee claimedthat,theassesseeisinUSAwhilereassessment proceedingsweregoingonbytheAOu/s147/148,andthe matterbeenold,heisunabletotracethereturnofincome originallyfiledu/s139on28.03.2013.TheAOafter verificationstatedthatnosuchreturnofincomeisavailable ontherecord,Thiswaslaterconfirmedbyld.CIT(A)alsoin appellateproceedingsthatonverification,itisfoundthatno returnofincomewasoriginallyfiledbytheassesseeu/s139. Evenld.Sr.DRalsomadestatementbeforemethatnoreturn ofincomewasoriginallyfiledbytheassesseeu/s139on 28.03.2013,asclaimedbytheassessee.Beforeme,the assesseehasclaimedthatreturnofincomeisenclosedin PaperBookatPageNo.7-16,butnoacknowledgmentof returnofincome(orcompletesetofreturnofincome)arefiled inthepaperbook,andonlycomputationofincomeofthe assesseeaswellofHUFofbrothersarefiled.Thus,thisisa disputedissue.IhavealsoobservedthattheAOinits reassessmentorderdated23.12.2019passedu/s147read I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 13 withSection144whilecomputingtotalincome,referredto returnofincomefiledbytheassesseeon28.03.2013(OLD ROI),asunder: ParticularsInRs. Returnincomefiledon 28.03.2013(OLDROI) 2,61,400/- AdditiononInterestincome29,87,378/- TotalIncomeAssessed32,48,778/- RoundOff32,48,778 Bethatitmaybe,letmeproceedfurther.Statutorynotices wereissuedbytheAOu/s142(1)fromtimetotimeduringthe courseofreassessmentproceedings,butonlypart-replywas furnishedbytheassessee.TheAOissuedSCNinvoking provisionsofSection144withaviewtoproceedtoframebest judgmentre-assessmentagainsttheassessee.Theassessee challengedreopeningu/s147onthegroundsthatthereisa factualerrorinreopeningproceedingsastheassesseehas dulyfileditsreturnofincomeu/s139,whileAOreopenedthe assessmentonthepremisethatnoreturnofincomewas originallyfiledu/s139.Itisalsoclaimedthattheintereston enhancedcompensationofagriculturallandwasgrantedby GovernmentofGujaratonthecompulsoryacquisitionof agriculturalland(claimedtobesituatednearDabhoi-survey no.1536)whichlandwasco-ownedbytheassesseealongwith histhreebrothers,andwhohavegiventheirpowerofattorney infavourofassesseetorepresentthematterbeforethe I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 14 authoritiesandalsotoreceiveinterestonenhanced compensationoncompulsoryacquisitionoftheirshareof agriculturallandbytheassesseeinhisname,andlater distributetherespectivesharesofthreebrotherstothesaid threebrothers(whohaveclaimedtobetheco-ownersofthe landcompulsorilyacquiredalongwiththeassessee)TheAO aswellld.CIT(A)rejectedtheclaimoftheassessee,asno documentstosubstantiatethesamewerefiledbytheassessee. Beforeme,theassesseehasfiledpartcopyofjudgmentof DistrictCourt,Vadodradated14/03/2007,andpowerof attorneysclaimedtobeexecutedbytheco-ownersofthe aforesaidpropertywhichwassubjectmatterofcompulsory acquisitionbyGovernmentofGujaratforconstructingSardar SaroverNarmadaDam.Further,itisclaimedthattheother threeco-ownershavealsofiledtheirreturnofincome originallyu/s139anddeclaredtheirshareofinterestearned onenhancedcompensationforacquisitionoftheirshareof agriculturallandclaimedtobesituatednearDabhoi(survey no.1536),intheirrespectivereturn(s)ofincomefiledbythem withRevenue.TheassesseeinitspaperbookfiledwithITAT hasdulyfiledrespectivecomputationofincomewithrespectto other3brothersclaimedtobeco-ownersoftheacquiredland, butcopyofacknowledgmentofITR’s/returnofincomearenot filed.TheassesseehassubmittedbeforetheAO,the acknowledgmentnumbersofthefilingofthereturnofincome I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 15 bytheotherthreeco-owners,andclaimismadethattheother threeco-ownershavedulydeclaredtheirshareofintereston enhancedcompensation.Theclaimsandcontentionsofthe assesseerequiresverificationbytheauthoritiesbelowasto theownershippatternoftheacquiredlandunder considerationandotherfactualmatterssuchasawardof interestonenhancedcompensationanditstaxability.Ifthe contentionsoftheassesseearetruethatthelandunder considerationwhichwascompulsoryacquiredwasco-owned by4brothersincludingtheassessee,andmerelypowerof attorneywereexecutedbytheotherthreeco-ownersinfavour oftheassesseetorepresentbeforeauthoritiesandtoreceive theinterestonenhancedcompensationontheirbehalfand laterhandsthemovertheirrespectiveshareofintereston enhancedcompensationoncompulsoryacquisitionofland, thentheinterestincometotheextentoftheshareofthree otherco-ownersneverbelongedtotheassessee,andprinciples ofdiversionbyover-ridingtitlewillcomeintoplay,andthe entireinterestincome(i.e.includingtheshareofotherco- owners)cannotbebroughttotaxinthehandsoftheassessee, asthesaidinterestincometotheextentofshareofthreeother co-ownersneverbelongedtotheassesseeandisrequiredtobe broughttotaxintherespectivehandsoftheotherthreeco- owners.Thesefactualaspectsrequiresverificationandinquiry bytheauthoritiesbelow.Theassesseehasfiledadditional I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 16 evidencesinthepaperbook,whichalsorequiresverification andinquiry.Proceedingfurther,thereisanamendmentin Section56(2)(viii)byFinanceAct,2009w.e.f.01.04.2010,and ifthesameisreadwithSection145B(1),theinterestincome onenhancedcompensationsistaxableinthepreviousyearin whichitisreceived.Presently,Iamconcernedwith assessmentyear2012-13,andamendedprovisionsshallapply, andthesaidinterestonenhancedcompensationon acquisitionoflandischargeabletotaxinthepreviousyerin whichitisreceived.Theld.Sr.DRhasrightlyrelieduponthe judgmentandorderofHon’bleDelhiHighCourtinthecaseof InderjitSinghSodhi(HUF(supra). Thus,therelianceofthe assesseeonorderspassedforearlieryearsarenotrelevant, keepinginviewamendmentinthestatutebyFinanceAct, 2009w.e.f.01.04.2010.Ihavealsoobservedthattheassessee hasmadeclaimsastofilingofreturnofincomeoriginallyu/s 139fortheimpugnedassessmentyear,anddetailssuchas acknowledgmentnumber,dateoffiling,computationof incomeetc.arefurnishedbytheassessee,butthesameis disputedbytheauthoritiesbelowaswellbybyld.Sr.DR.I havealsoobservedthattheassesseehasalsoclaimedtohave uploadedresponsesbeforetheauthoritiesbelowaswellthe assesseehasclaimedthatreasonsforre-openingwerenever communicatedtotheassesseebuttheassesseesawit online.OntheonehandtheAOissayingthatnoreturnof I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 17 incomewasoriginallyfiledandontheotherhand,theAOis referringtothereturnofincomeoriginallyfiledwhile computingtotalincome.Further,theAOhastakentheincome ofRs.2,61,400/-asclaimedtobedeclaredbytheassesseein returnofincomebeingitsshareofinterestonenhanced compensationonacquisitionoflandafteradjustingforrelief u/s57etc,andthereaftertheentireinterestincomeisadded, whichhasledtodoubleadditionstothateffect.Thisaspect shallalsobelookedintobytheauthorities,sothatthe assesseedonotsufferfromdoubletaxationofthesame income,whichisnotpermissible.Sufficetosaythat authoritiesarevestedwithpowersandtheymustusetheir powerswithgreatcareandcautionandwithfullesthonesty, sothatthebonafideandhonesttax-payersdonotsufferowing toacallousapproachoftheauthorities.TheMorethe authorityandpowersarevestedintheStatutoryauthorities, thereismoretheneedtobehumbleandtoexercisesuch powerscautiouslyandcarefullyandwithutmosthonesty,so thatinnocent,honestandbonafidetax-payershouldnotsuffer orfaceanyundueharassment.Thereisnoiotaofdoubtthat thedishonesttax-payersandevadersoftaxesaretobe broughttojusticeinamannerthatitbecomesdeterrentfor otherstotakesuchcourse,andalsothateventhelastrupee oftaxes,interestandpenaltiesetc.shouldbecollected promptlyfromsuchtax-evadersanddishonesttax-payers,but I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 18 intheprocess,thehonest,bonafideandinnocenttax-payers shouldnotbemadetosuffer.Thus,thegrainistoberemoved fromthechaff.ItisreiteratedbyGOItimeandagainthattax- payersareoneoftheimportantpillarsinthenationbuilding andinachievingthegoalofmakingIndiaadevelopednation. TheGOIisencouragingeaseofdoingbusiness,andIndian Economyismovingrapidlytowardsdigitisationandincreased useoftechnologyinallsphere’sofeconomiclife,whichif efficientlyandeffectivelyusedcanachievethedesiredgoalsof collectinglegitimatetaxeswithintheframeworkandmandate ofthe1961Act.Theultimateobjectandmandateofthe1961 Actistocollectcorrecttaxesinthehandsofthecorrecttax- payersandforthecorrectassessmentyearatthecorrectrates, asmandatedbyStatutoryprovisionsasarecontainedinthe statuteitself.In thiscontext,itwillberelevantheretoreferto departmentcircularNo.14(XL-35)dated11.04.1955.Keeping inviewfactsandcircumstancesofthecaseasenumerated aboveandintheinterestofjusticeaswellthatadditional evidenceswillrequireverificationandinquiry,Iamsetting asidethere-assessmentorderpassedbytheAOandthe appellateorderspassedbyld.CIT(A),andrestoringthematter backtothefileoftheAOfordenovore-assessment.Allthe contentionsarekeptopenincludinglegalaswellfactual challengemadebytheassessee.Theevidencesfiledbythe assesseeinitssupport/defence,shallbeadmittedbytheAO, I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 19 andadjudicatedonmeritsinaccordancewithlaw.TheAO shallgiveproperandadequateopportunityofbeingheardto theassesseeduringdenovoreassessmentproceedings.TheAO isdirectedtopassspeakingandreasonedorder.Theassessee onitspartisalsodirectedtocomplywiththenoticesoftheAO, andsubmittherequiredinformation/evidencesascalledfor bytheAOduringdenovoreassessmentproceedings.Iclarify thatIhavenotcommentedonthemeritsoftheissue.The appealoftheassesseeisallowedforstatisticalpurposes.I orderaccordingly. 7.Intheresult,appealoftheassesseeinITAno. 485/Ahd/2024forassessmentyear2012-13isallowedfor statisticalpurposes. 8.OrderpronouncedinaccordancewithRule34(4)ofthe IncomeTaxAppellateTribunalRules,1963atAhmedabadon 31.07.2024. Sd/- (RAMITKOCHAR) ACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad:Dated31/07/2024 आदेशकीप्र्ि्िअगे्ेर/CopyofOrderForwardedto:- 1.Assessee 2.Revenue 3.ConcernedCIT 4.CIT(A) I.T.ANo.485/Ahd/2024A.Y.2012-13PageNo. ChandrkantGordhanbhaiPatelv.DCIT 20 5.DR,ITAT,Ahmedabad 6.Guardfile. Byorder/आदेशसे, उि/सहायकिंजीकार आयकरअिीिीयअ्िकरण, अहमदाबाद