Nitaben Rasikbhai Patel, Anand V. The ITO, Ward- 1(3)(2) now Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

ITA 687/AHD/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8797 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-02-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIASHOKKUMARSUTHAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIB.TTHAKKAR; ISSUINGMULTIPLENOTICESBUTTHEREWASNO
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, ‘’C’’BENCH,AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER And MsMADHUMITAROY,JUDICIALMEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITANo.687/AHD/2023 धििाधरणवरध / Asstt.Year:2011-2012 NitabenRasikbhaiPatel, MotiKhadkiAtSisva, TaBorsad, Anand-388540. PAN:AWSPP5864D Vs. IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward-1(3)(2), NowWard1(3)(1), Petlad. (Applicant)(Respondent) Assesseeby:ShriB.TThakkar,A.R Revenueby:ShriAshokKumarSuthar,Sr.D.R सुिवाईकीतारीख /DateofHearing:05/02/2024 घोरणाकीतारीख/DateofPronouncement:09/02/2024 आदेश/ORDER PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER: ThecaptionedappealhasbeenfiledattheinstanceoftheAssesseeagainst theorderoftheLearnedCommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals),Vadodara, arisinginthematterofassessmentorderpassedunders.144oftheIncomeTax Act,1961(here-in-afterreferredtoas"theAct")relevanttotheAssessmentYear 2011-2012. ITAno.687/AHD/2023 A.Y.2011-12 2 2.TheonlygrievanceraisedbytheassesseeisthattheLd.CIT(A),erredin confirmingtheorderoftheAObysustainingtheadditionofRs.61,51,200/-under thehead“longtermcapitalgain”onthesaleofagriculturalland. 3.Inthepresentcasetheproceedingswereinitiatedu/s147oftheAct,for theincomeescapingassessmentonaccountofnon-disclosureofincomeonthe saleofimmovablepropertyforRs.10,00,000/-only.Furthermore,aspertheAO, thestampvalueoftheimmovablepropertywasRs.61,51,200/-whereasthe samewassoldbytheassesseeatRs.10,00,000/-only.Aspertheprovisionsof section50CoftheAct,thestampvalueoflanddeclaredforthepurposeofthe stampdutyshouldbetakenassaleconsiderationforthepurposeofcalculating thecapitalgainundersection50CoftheAct.Tothiseffect,aclarificationwas soughtbytheAOfromtheassesseebyissuingmultiplenoticesbuttherewasno compliance.Therefore,theAOframedtheassessmentu/s147oftheActvide orderdated21/03/2016,bymakingtheadditionofthestampvalueofthe propertyindisputeatRs.61,51,200/-only. 4.OnappealbeforetheLd.CIT(A),therewasalsonocompliancebythe assesseeandthereforetheLd.CIT(A)waspleasedtoupholdthefindingoftheAO. 5.BeingaggrievedbytheorderoftheLd.CIT(A),theassesseeisinappeal beforeus. 6.TheLd.ARbeforeusfiledapaperbookrunningfrompages1to19but failedtogiveanysatisfactoryexplanationfornon-complianceoftheassessee beforetheauthoritiesbelow.However,theLd.ARmadeaverypertinentpoint demonstratingthatthelandwasownedby3personswhereastherevenuehas madetheadditioninthehandsofthepresentassesseeonly.AspertheLd.AR, thefactthatthelandindisputeisownedby3partieswasverymuchappearingin thesaledeedwhichwasavailablebeforetheAOduringtheassessment ITAno.687/AHD/2023 A.Y.2011-12 3 proceedings.Accordingly,theLd.ARsubmittedthattherehasbeennegligent approachonthepartoftherevenuewhileframingtheassessmentinscientific mannerundersection144r.w.s.147oftheAct. 7.BesidestheabovetheLd.ARalsosubmittedthatthelandindispute,being agricultureland,cannotbemadesubjecttotaxundertheheadcapitalgain.As pertheLd.ARthelandindisputeisnotacapitalassetchargeabletotaxunder theheadcapitalgain. 8.Ontheotherhand,theLd.DRsubmittedthattheasseseehasbeen negligentinmakingcomplianceofthenoticesissuedbytheauthoritiesbelow. Therefore,theorderoftheauthoritiesbelowshouldbeupheld.TheLd.DR vehementlysupportedtheorderoftheauthoritiesbelow. 9.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Admittedly,theLd.ARbeforeushasnotfurnished anyplausiblereasonfornon-complianceduringtheassessmentandappellate proceedings. 9.1Bethatasitmaybe,itisthetritelawthattheincome,eveninthesituation ofnon-cooperationfromtheassessee,hastobedeterminedinascientificmanner andwithintheprovisionsoflaw.Assuch,afterreferringthesaledeed,wefind forceintheargumentofLd.ARthattherearethreeownerofthelandand thereforeitappealstousapparentlythattheincomeundertheheadcapitalgain withrespecttothepropertyindisputecannotbemadeinthehandsofthe assesseefortheentireamountofsaleconsideration.Likewise,wealsonotea defectintheorderoftheauthoritiesbelowthatnobenefitofcostofacquisitionof suchlandhasbeengivenwhilecomputingincomeundertheheadcapitalgain whichwasmandatorytoallowasdeduction.Furthermore,wealsonotethatthe contentionoftheLd.ARthatthelandindisputeisanagriculturelandhasnot ITAno.687/AHD/2023 A.Y.2011-12 4 beendecidedonmerit,certainlybecauseofnon-cooperationfromthesideofthe assessee.However,weareconsciousofthefactthatameritoriouscasecannotbe dismissedonaccounttechnicallapsesasheldbytheHon’bleGujaratHighCourtin thecaseofS.R.KoshtiVs.CITreportedin276ITR165.Therelevantextractof thejudgmentisasunder: 20.Awordofcaution.TheauthoritiesundertheActareunderanobligationtoactin accordancewithlaw.TaxcanbecollectedonlyasprovidedundertheAct.Ifanassessee, underamistake,misconceptionoronnotbeingproperlyinstructed,isover-assessed,the authoritiesundertheActarerequiredtoassisthimandensurethatonlylegitimatetaxes duearecollected.ThisCourt,inanunreporteddecisionincaseofVinayChandulal Satiav.N.O.Parekh,CIT[Spl.CivilApplicationNo.622of1981dated20-8-1981],haslaid downtheapproachthattheauthoritiesmustadoptinsuchmattersinthefollowingterms: "TheSupremeCourthasobservedinnumerousdecisions,includingRamlalv.Rewa CoalfieldsLtd.AIR1962SC361,StateofWestBengalv.Administrator,Howrah MunicipalityAIR1972SC749andBabutmalRaichandOswalv.LaxmibaiR.TarteAIR 1975SC1297,thattheStateauthoritiesshouldnotraisetechnicalpleasifthecitizens havealawfulrightandthelawfulrightisbeingdeniedtothemmerelyontechnical grounds.TheStateauthoritiescannotadopttheattitudewhichprivatelitigantsmight adopt." 9.2Fromtheaboveitisrevealedthattheincomeoftheassesseeshouldnotbe overassessedevenifthereisamistakeoftheassessee.Assuchthelegitimate deductionforwhichtheassesseeisentitledshouldbeallowedwhiledetermining thetaxableincome.WealsonotethattheHon’bleGujaratHighCourtinthecase ofVarelitextileindustryversusCITreportedin154Taxman33whereinitwas heldasunder: Itisequallywell-settledthatwhereacauseisconsciouslyabandoned(asinthepresent case)thepartyseekingcondonationhastoshowbycogentevidencesufficientcausein supportofitsclaimofcondonation.Theonusisgreater.Oneofthepropositionsofsettled legalpositionistoensurethatameritoriouscaseisnotthrownoutonthegroundof limitation.Therefore,itisnecessarytoexamine,atleastprimafacie,whethertheassessee hasorhasnotacaseonmerits. 9.3Inviewoftheabove,intheinterestofjusticeandfairplay,wearedeemed itfittorestoretheissuetofileoftheAOforfreshadjudicationasperthe provisionoflaw.Hence,thegroundofappealoftheassesseeisallowedforthe statisticalpurposes. ITAno.687/AHD/2023 A.Y.2011-12 5 10.Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheassesseeisallowedforstatistical purposes. OrderpronouncedintheCourton09/02/2024atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (MADHUMITAROY)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated09/02/2024 Manish