IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH H HH H : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, ,, , JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO. .. .5248/DEL/2013 5248/DEL/2013 5248/DEL/2013 5248/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2008 2008 2008 2008- -- -09 0909 09 SHRI VINOD KUMAR, SHRI VINOD KUMAR, SHRI VINOD KUMAR, SHRI VINOD KUMAR, PROP. M/S NOVALTY SAREE PROP. M/S NOVALTY SAREE PROP. M/S NOVALTY SAREE PROP. M/S NOVALTY SAREE CENTER, CENTER, CENTER, CENTER, A AA A- -- -40, SAMARAT PALACE, 40, SAMARAT PALACE, 40, SAMARAT PALACE, 40, SAMARAT PALACE, GARH ROAD, GARH ROAD, GARH ROAD, GARH ROAD, MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. PAN : PAN : PAN : PAN : AEYPC5577N. AEYPC5577N. AEYPC5577N. AEYPC5577N. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -2(4), 2(4), 2(4), 2(4), MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VINOD KUMAR GOEL, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAMEER SHARMA, SR.DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D.AGRA D.AGRA D.AGRA D.AGRAWAL, WAL, WAL, WAL, VP VPVP VP : : : : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), MEERUT DATED 23 RD AUGUST, 2013 FOR THE AY 2008-09. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT LD.A.O. AS WELL AS LD.CIT(A) IS IN ERROR IN COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN AFTER APPLYING SECTION 50C O F I.T. ACT HOWEVER, NO CAPITAL GAIN IS ARISE, IF ASSESSEE INVESTE D CAPITAL GAIN IN REC BOARD WHICH MAKE EXEMPTION U/S 54EC OF I.T. ACT, THE APPLICATION OF 50C IS TO COMPUTE CA PITAL GAIN ONLY AS IT IS DEEMING PROVISION FOR INVESTMENT IN SECTI ON 50C HAS NO APPLICATION THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD.A.O. 2. THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT PROPERLY CONSIDER THE CASE L AW AND PROVISION OF SECTION 54EC QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE, HENCE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF A.O. ITA-5248/DEL/2013 2 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHT TO ADD, DELETE OR MODIFY ANY GROUNDS DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDING. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS STATED BY T HE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE SOLD CERTAIN PROPE RTIES OUT OF WHICH CAPITAL GAIN AROSE. THAT WHATEVER WAS THE AMOU NT OF CAPITAL GAIN WAS DULY INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REC BONDS UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AND, THEREFORE, AS PER ASSESSEE, THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GAIN WAS EXEMPT. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER RECOMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN BY INVOKING THE DEEMING PROVISION O F SECTION 50C. HOWEVER, THEREAFTER, HE DID NOT RECOMPUTE THE DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 54EC IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BUT SIMPLY MADE THE ADDITION FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION AND STAMP DUTY VALUATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECOMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54EC IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STATED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME AND HAS ONLY MADE T HE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BET WEEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND STAMP DUTY VALUATI ON. THE ADDITION IS FULLY JUSTIFIED AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT. THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54EC IS ALLOWED AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HE CANNOT HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. AFTE R CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES, IN OU R OPINION, IT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECOMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 54EC IN ITA-5248/DEL/2013 3 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND DIRE CT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE AND, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION, RECOMPU TE THE CAPITAL GAIN INCLUDING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH MARCH, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( (( (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 14.03.2014 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : SHRI VINOD KUMAR, SHRI VINOD KUMAR, SHRI VINOD KUMAR, SHRI VINOD KUMAR, PROP. M/S NOVALTY SAREE CENTER, PROP. M/S NOVALTY SAREE CENTER, PROP. M/S NOVALTY SAREE CENTER, PROP. M/S NOVALTY SAREE CENTER, A AA A- -- -40, SAMARAT PALACE, GARH ROAD, 40, SAMARAT PALACE, GARH ROAD, 40, SAMARAT PALACE, GARH ROAD, 40, SAMARAT PALACE, GARH ROAD, MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. 2. RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -2(4), MEERUT. 2(4), MEERUT. 2(4), MEERUT. 2(4), MEERUT. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR