Smt. Surekha Hanumant Pawar, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 766/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9397 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Earning of tax free income

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . . . , , BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO. 766/PUN/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SMT. SUREKHA HANUMANT PAWAR, S.NO.47, SUNITA NAGAR, VADGAON SHERI, PUNE 411014 PAN : ACMPP8531F . / APPELLANT V/S DCIT, CIRCLE - 2, PUNE . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI ACHAL SHARMA / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE O RDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, PUNE DATED 03-12-2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED 4 GROUNDS. OUT OF THAT GROU ND NOS. 1 & 2 ARE THE CORE GROUNDS AND OTHERS ARE ARGUMENTATIVE I N NATURE. THE SAID GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER : 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), PUNE HAS ERRED IN LA W AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.57,30,000/- AS BUS INESS INCOME BY NOT TREATING THE LAND SITUATED AT GAT NO.1226, HISSA NO .1 AT VILLAGE SANASWADI AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND CONSIDERING IT A S A CAPITAL ASSET U/S.2(14) OF THE ACT. / DATE OF HEARING :31.05.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.05.2017 2 ITA NO.766/PUN/2014 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), PUNE HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING AN ADDITIO N OF RS.60,00,000/- AND TREATING THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME BY NOT APP RECIATING FOLLOWING FACTS. 3. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED AN AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 20-03-2006 AND THE SAME WAS SOLD ON 24-01-2008 AND EARNED PROFITS/GAIN S. THE GAINS WERE CLAIMED AS EXEMPT. HOWEVER, DURING ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, AO CONSIDERING THE SAME AS BUSINESS TRANSACTION AND AS SESSED THE PROFITS OF RS.1,17,30,000/-. IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEDINI GS, CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD. A UTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT HE P ROPOSED NOT TO MAKE ANY SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUN D. FURTHER, WITHOUT FORMALLY NOT PRESSING THE GROUNDS, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BENCH MAY DECIDE THE ISSUES RAISED I N THE GROUNDS AS PER THE LAW IN FORCE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AND THE CIT(A). 5. ON HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE GROUNDS AND HAS NOT PUT-FORWARD ANY SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE GROU NDS. FURTHER, HE MENTIONED THAT THE APPEAL MAY NOT BE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. HE HOWEVER CONCEDED THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTION IN Q UESTION IS NOT NECESSARILY THE ONE WHICH YIELDED AN EXEMPT INCOME ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.10 OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE SAME, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE FACT AND BASED ON THE CONFESSION MENTIONED BY T HE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDERS OF AO AND THE CIT(A) 3 ITA NO.766/PUN/2014 ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE. THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF MAY, 2017. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 31 ST MAY, 2017. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // //TRUE COPY// /ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) - II, PUNE 4. CIT - II, PUNE 5. , , B BENCH / DR, ITAT, B BENCH PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE.