C.K.Lakshmanan, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 778/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 77821714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHALJCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: P RANGA RAMANUJAM
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . , , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.778 /MDS./2014 ( !' #' / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2005-06) SHRI C.K. LAKSHMANAN, C/O S. VASANTHA, 174, ANNA SALAI, CHENGALPATTU 603 002. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD II(2), CHENNAI 600 034. PAN ABEPL 3300 M ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) $% & ' / APPELLANT BY : MR.P. RANGA RAMANUJAM, CA ()$% & ' / RESPONDENT BY : DR. B. NISCHAL, JCIT * + & , - / DATE OF HEARING : 07.10.2015 .# & ,- /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2015 / O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-IV, CHENN AI DATED 30.11.201 IN ITA NO.116/07-08/A-IV. ITA NO.778/MDS/2014 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVEN ELABORATE GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE A SSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), WHO HAD UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NOT TREATING THE L AND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. ON PERUSING THE FILE WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL HAS FILED THE APPEAL WITH A DELAY OF 1083 DAYS. AN AFFIDAVIT IS ALSO SU BMITTED BEFORE US FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE ASSE SSEE, WHO IS AGED 93 YEARS, HAS SUBMITTED IN HIS AFFIDAVIT THAT HE WA S WRONGLY ADVISED BY HIS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT F ILE THE APPEAL. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL CASE OF THE ASSESSEES OWN BROTHER C.K.THEERTHAGIRI HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN HIS FAVOUR, IN THE STRENGTH OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF HIS ANOTHER BROTHER SHRI C.K. RAMACHANDRAN WHICH WAS ALSO HAS HELD IN THEIR FAVOUR. ALL THESE BROTHERS WERE THE J OINT OWNERS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD DUE TO WHICH THE LD.A.O ASSE SSED THE ASSESSEES SHARE OF SALE PROCEEDS UNDER THE HEAD CA PITAL GAIN. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE ARE OF THE ITA NO.778/MDS/2014 3 CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL REQUIRES TO BE CONDONED AND ACCORDINGLY WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELA Y FOR FILING THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.20 06 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DECLARING INCOME AS RS 3,74 ,150/-. INITIALLY, THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 1 43(1) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. A O THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RS 77,55,238/- AS SALE PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE LD. AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY AGRICU LTURAL INCOME FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR FOR EARLIER YEARS. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE FURTHER ENQUIRIES FROM THE LOCAL AUTHO RITIES. THE TEHSILDAR OF POONAMALLEE CERTIFIED VIDE LETTER DATE D 24.12.2007 THAT NO CULTIVATION WAS PERFORMED IN THE ABOVE SAID LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO CERTIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID URBAN LAND TAX FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. THE VAO, VIDE LETTER DATED 17.12.2007 STATED THAT THE LAND WAS UTILIZED BY THE COMPANY M/ S VESTAS RRB ITA NO.778/MDS/2014 4 INDIA LTD., AND THEY HAD PAID URBAN LAND TAX ALSO. FURTHER, A LETTER WAS RECEIVED FROM THE MEMBER SECRETARY, CMDA DATED 14.07.2007 WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE LAND WAS NOTIFIED AS GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE AS PER MASTER PLAN. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE LAND SOLD BY HIM WAS AGRI CULTURAL LAND AND BASED ON THE ABOVE INFORMATION GATHERED, THE LD. AO TREATED THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AS NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND AND A SSESSED HIS 1/5 TH SHARE(THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING THE LAND JOINTLY WIT H FOUR OF HIS BROTHERS) OF THE SALE PROCEEDS UNDER THE HEAD CAPIT AL GAINS. WHILE DOING SO, THE LD. AO ALSO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WHICH HAD COME INTO EFFECT FROM 01.04.2003. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO AGREEING W ITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US TH AT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES BROTHERS WHO WERE THE JOINT OWNERS OF THE LAND UNDER CONSIDERATI ON, IN THEIR FAVOUR AND THEREFORE IT WAS ARGUED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO THE SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF THE LAND MA Y BE CONSIDERED AS SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF AGRICULT URAL LAND AND ACCORDINGLY RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED. THE LD. AR ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE ITA NO.778/MDS/2014 5 US THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE LD. CIT(A) TO JUSTIFY HIS STAND. THE LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS CLAIMED BY THE LD. AR, FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS - (1) ASSESSEES OWN BROTHER - SHRI C.K. THEERTHAGIRI V. ITO IN ITA NO.1683/MDS/2013 DATED 18.11.2013, (2) ITO V . SMT. SASIKALA (LEGAL HEIR OF ASSESSEES BROTHER SHRI C.K. RAMACHA NDRAN) IN ITA NOS.2083 & 1956/MDS/2013 DATED 18.02.2014, AND (3) ORDER U/S. 250(6) BY CIT(A) IN ITA NO.158/2012-13 DATED 02.07. 2013 IN THE CASE OF LATE C.K. RAMACHANDRAN, IT IS APPARENT THAT IN THE CASES OF THE ASSESSEES BROTHERS WHO WERE JOINT OWNERS OF TH E AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD, IT WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF LATE C.K. RAMACHANDRAN IN ITA NO. 158/2 012-13 THAT THE LAND SOLD WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ACCORDINGLY REL IEF WAS GRANTED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AN AGRICU LTURAL LAND. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES BROTHER, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LD. AO TO TREAT THE SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED FROM ITA NO.778/MDS/2014 6 SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ACCORDINGLY, DELETE T HE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( N.R.S.GANESAN ) ( . '#$ %' ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. K S SUNDARAM. & (,/0 1 0#, /COPY TO: 1. $% /APPELLANT 2. ()$% /RESPONDENT 3. * 2, ( ) /CIT(A) 4. * 2, /CIT 5. 05 (,6! /DR 6. ' 7+ /GF