Shri Chandra Kumar Sachanand, Indore V. The ITO WARD 3(1), Indore

ITA 553/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 55322714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: TRIBHOVAN SACHDEVA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Reasonable cause
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, J.M. AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, A.M. I.T.A.NO.553/IND/2013 A.Y. : 2005-06 SHRI CHANDRA KUMAR SACHANAND, ITO, WARD 3(1), INDORE VS INDORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT P.A.N. NO AMIPK32989C APPELLANT BY SHRI TRIBHOVAN SACHDEVA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SHRI R. A. VERMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 .08.2015 -: 2: - 2 O R D E R PER GARASIA, J.M. THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) -I, INDORE, DATED 25.02.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 05-06. 2. THIS APPEAL IS DELAYED BY 85 DAYS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED EXPLANATION STATING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-I DATED 25.2.2013, WAS SER VED ON 22.3.2013. THE ORDER WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR F ILING OF A SECOND APPEAL BEFORE I.T.A.T. THE ORDER WAS MISPLAC ED BY THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASS AND THE APPEAL WHICH WAS TO B E FILED BY 22.5.2013 I.E. WITHIN 60 DAYS COULD NOT BE FILED. T HE SAID PAPERS WERE FOUND ON 12.08.2013 AND IMMEDIATELY THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 13.08.2013. TO THIS EFFECT, AN AFFIDAV IT BY SHRI ANIL KHANDELWAL, ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO FILED AND IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE PRAYED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. -: 3: - 3 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND ALSO PERUSED THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY SHRI ANIL KHAND ELWAL, ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE DELAY IS NOT INTENTIONAL AND REASONABLE CAUSE IS THERE TO FILE T HE APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, CONDONE THE DELAY. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 1,27 ,300/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A PLOT SITUATED AT GULMARG COLONY, IN WHICH THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 30 LACS HAS BEEN SHOWN IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE ASSESS EE HAS SOLD THE SAME BY WAY OF REGISTERED POWER OF ATTORNE Y DATED 03.01.2005. THE ASSESSEE HAS REGISTERED THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY TO SUB-REGISTRAR, DISTRICT INDORE, AND MAR KET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS TAKEN AT RS. 31,08,500/-, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ONLY RS. 30,00,000/- IN COMPUTATION OF IN COME. WHILE IT WAS TAKEN AT RS. 31,08,500/- AS PER SECTIO N 50C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR CALCULATION OF THE CA PITAL GAINS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF SALE AGRE EMENT DATED 31 ST MARCH, 2005, WHICH WAS NOT REGISTERED OR NOTARIZED -: 4: - 4 AND ON THE BASIS OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEM PTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF PLOT IN 1993 FOR WORKING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS , BUT IT SHOULD BE TAKEN IN 1994-95. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS W ORKED OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS AS UNDER :- SALE CONSIDERATION (AS PER SECTION. 50C) RS. 31,08,500/ - L ESS : COST OF INFLATION ON PLOT PURCHASED ON 7.4.1994 76,000X480/259 RS., 1,40,849/- RS. 10,00,000/- LESS : EXEMPTION U/S 54EC (DISCUSSED AS ABOVE RS. 10,00,000/- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS. 19,67,651/ - 5. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PLOT SITUATED AT IND ORE, FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS. 30 LACS. THE PROCESS OF SALE T OOK PLACE IN TWO PARTS, FIRSTLY, THE ASSESSEE ISSUED POWER OF AT TORNEY WHICH WAS WITHOUT CONSIDERATION AND WAS ADMITTED FOR REGI STRATION -: 5: - 5 PURPOSES BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, ON 31.03.2015 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE INCOME FOR LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAINS. AS PER SECTION 54EC, IF THE ASSESSEE WANTED EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, HE HAS TO INVEST MONEY WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE SALE OF PLOT. AFTE R THIS, THE SALE VALUE WAS TAKEN AT RS. 31.08 LACS. THE LD. AUT HORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE REGISTRAR ON STAMP DUTY OF RS. 100 /-. SINCE THE STAMP DUTY WAS LESS, THE PAPER WAS DETAINED BY THE AUTHORITY AND, THEREAFTER, THE AUTHORITY HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY AND STAMP DUTY OF RS. 62,170/- WAS TAKEN A FTER RELEASE OF POWER OF ATTORNEY, THE PROPERTY WAS REGI STERED ON 09.08.2005. THE INVESTMENT IN BOND U/S 54EC HAVE BE EN MADE ON 28.09.2005 WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT AND POSSESSION AS WELL AS REGISTERED POWE R OF ATTORNEY ON 09.08 . 2005 . 6. THE LD. SENIOR D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, -: 6: - 6 WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PLOT AT GULMOHAR COLONY FOR SALE CONSIDERATION OF R S. 30 LACS BY WAY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 03.01.2005 AND PO SSESSION WAS HANDED OVER. OUT OF THIS SALE PROCEEDS, THE ASS ESSEE HAS INVESTED RS. 10 LACS ON 6.1.2005 AND ON 28.9.2005 R S. 18.40 LACS WAS INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF BOND OF RURAL ELEC TRIFICATION CORPORATION AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF CAPITAL GAINS U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE EVIDENCE PRODUC ED BEFORE US ON PAGE 2 OF HIS PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT AND ORIGINAL AGREE MENT WAS WITHHELD BY STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY AS STAMP DUTY WAS LESS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO PAY FURTHER STAMP DUTY AND AFTER PAYING THE FURTHER DUTY, THE ACTUAL SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 09.08.2005. THEREFORE, WE FIND FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED RS. 10 LAC S ON 6.1.2005 I.E. ON DATE OF AGREEMENT AND REMAINING AM OUNT COULD NOT BE INVESTED AS THE SALE DEED WAS COMPLETE D ON 09.08.2005. THEREFORE, BOTH THESE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE WITHIN THE TIME. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. -: 7: - 7 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH AUGUST, 2015. SD/- (B. C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :20 TH AUGUST, 2015. CPU* 198