Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Siliguri V. DCIT, Circle - 2, Siliguri, Siliguri

ITA 752/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 75223514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DILIP KR RAKSHIT L
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKASH SURANA CA LD
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 50C; 54F

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 752/KOL/11-C-JM 1 , C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH: KO LKATA () , !'!# 1%& , , ( BEFORE SRI PRAMOD KUMAR, AM & SRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM ) ' / I.T.A NO. 752/KOL/2011 (&' )*/ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL VS. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE -2, SILIGURI PAN: ACRPA 8426F ( %, /APPELLANT ) ( -%,/ RESPONDENT ) %, / FOR THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: . / SHRI VIKASH SURANA, CA, LD. AR -%, / FOR THE RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT: . / SHRI DILIP KR. RAKSHIT, LD.JCIT/SR.DR &/ 0 1 /DATE OF HEARING: 01-08-2013 2) 0 1 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01-08-2013 3 /ORDER !'!# 1%& , SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), SILIGURI IN APPEAL NO. 77 /CIT(A)/SLG/10-11 DATED 28/03/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09.. 2. SHRI VIKASH SURANA, CA, LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SHRI DILIP KR. RAKSHIT, JCIT, LEARNED SR..DR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAI SED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- I) FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 50C OF THE 1.T.ACT WHILE ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 54E C ON SALE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET. 2) FOR THAT THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C C ANNOT CONTROL THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54EC OF THE LT.ACT. 3) FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN MIS-INTERPRETIN G THE DECISION GIVEN BY JURISDICTIONAL ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH IN CASE OF SM T. CHANDRAKALA DEVI BANSAL VS ITO, ITA NO: 2481K/2005. 4) FOR THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTE R ANY FURTHER GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE HEARING. ITA NO. 752/KOL/11-C-JM 2 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PLOT OF LAND DURING THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR RS. 10 LAKHS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS. 10 LAKHS IN THE BONDS AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID LAND WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 35 LAKHS BY THE DISTRICT SUB REGISTRAR BEING THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADOPTED THE SALE VALUE OF TH E LAND AT RS.35 LAKHS AND COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 23,11,719/-. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GRANTED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC TO T HE EXTENT OF RS. 10 LAKHS AND TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.23,11,719/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 35 LAKHS. THE ASSESS EE HAS RECEIVED ONLY RS. 10 LAKHS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS LIABLE TO BE AS SESSED ONLY BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING RS. 10 LAKHS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION, IF THE ISSUE OF VALUATION OF T HE PROPERTY WAS SENT TO THE D.V.O FOR VALUING THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION. IT WAS TH E FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CONFI RMING THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 5. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED JCIT/SR.DR DREW OUR ATTEN TION TO PAGES 2,3 & 4 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). I T WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 54F OF THE ACT, THE SAME COULD NOT BE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS SECTION 5 4F AND SECTION 54EC WERE ON TWO DIFFERENT PLANES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY CLAIM FOR REFERENCE TO THE D.V.O BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR HAD PO INTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT FOR REFERRING THE VALUATION TO THE D.V.O, THE SALE CON SIDERATION WAS RIGHTLY TAKEN AT RS. 35 LAKHS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY REASON FOR REFERENCE TO THE D.V.O IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY, THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY BY THE STAMP VALUATI ON AUTHORITY AT RS. 35 LAKHS HAS NOT BEEN ITA NO. 752/KOL/11-C-JM 3 DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITYS VALUE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE SAME WOULD HAVE TO BE ADOPTE D IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. FURTHER A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN DETAILED REASONS TO SHOW THAT THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED OR TREATED AS TO BE IN PARI MATERIA WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. FURTHER A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY S HOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ITS STAND IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT REPLIED IN RESPECT OF SECTION 50C. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE ON A RIGHT FOOTING AND DO N OT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. . 4 3 5 & 6 47 THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01- 08-2013 - SD/- SD/- *PP/SPS 3 0 ((8 98): / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. . %, / THE APPELLANT : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL C/O KUB ER FURNISHING OPP: BAKSHI PAUL PETROL PUMP, SEVOKE ROAD, SILIGURI , W.B 2 -%, / THE RESPONDENT: DCIT, CIRCLE-2, AAYKAR BHAWAN, M ATIGARA, SILIGURI (W.B). 3 4. . (3& / THE CIT (3& ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5 . ;(6 (& / DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . -8 (/ TRUE COPY, 3&/ BY ORDER, 4 ! /ASSTT REGISTRAR ( . , ) ( PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( !'!# 1 % & , ) (GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( (( ( 1 1 1 1 ) )) ) DATE 01-08-2013