Shri. Pannalal Shahu, Nagpur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,Central Circle-2(2), Nagpur

ITSSA 7/NAG/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8871 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR M BHUSARI
• Section: 54F; 153A

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH , ( E - COURT), MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI R.K.GUPTA , J M & SHRI RAJENDRA , A M IT (SS) A NO. 6 / N AG / 20 1 2 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 3 - 0 4 ) SHRI RAMESH KUMAR SHAHU, 83, NETAJI NAGAR, OLD PARDI NAKA, NAGPUR - 440 008 VS. ACIT, CIR - 2(2), NAGPUR - 440 001 PAN/GIR NO. : A HFPS 7717 N ( A PPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) AND IT (SS) A NO. 7 / NAG /20 12 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR :2003 - 04 ) SHRI PANNALAL SHAHU, 83, NETAJI NAGAR, OLD PARDI NAKA, NAGPUR - 440 008 VS. ACIT, CIR - 2(2), NAGPUR - 440 001 PAN/GIR NO. : A A FPS 9718 D ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : MR. K.P.DEWANI /REVENUE BY : DR. M . BHUSARI DATE OF HEARING : 2 4 TH JAN ., 201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 ST FEB. ,201 3 O R D E R P ER SHRI R.K.G UPTA, JM : TH E SE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES BEFORE THE ITAT NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR, AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEANED CIT (A) - I , NAGPUR (MAHARAS HTRA) RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 3 - 0 4 , WHICH HAVE BEEN HEARD THROUGH E - COURT, MUMBAI . IT (SS) A NO S . 6&7 /20 1 2 2 2 . THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAMESH KUMAR SHAHU IN HIS APPEAL I.E. ITA NO.06/NAG/2010(AY2003 - 04) IS OBJECTING IN REGARD TO NOT ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F AT RS.13,47,536/ - , WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE SHRI PANNALAL SHAHU IN HIS APPEAL I.E. ITA NO.07/NAG/2012 (AY 2003 - 04) IS OBJECTING IN REGARD TO NOT ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F AT RS.6,42,468/ - . 3 . SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE CASES, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE , BOTH THESE CASES HAVE BEEN HEARD AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER TOGETHER. 4 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132(1) WAS CONDUCTED IN THE SHAHU GROUP OF CASES OF NAGPUR ON 8 - 3 - 200 6. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A WAS ISSUED FOR CALLING THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE S BOTH THE ASSESSEE S FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 21,12,012/ - ALONG WITH AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,55,166/ - AND RS. 20,09,590/ - ALONG WITH AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,32,430/ - , RESPECTIVELY. BOTH T HE ASSESSEES HAVE SHO WN INCOME OF RS. 17,00,000/ - AND RS.15,77,000/ - , RESPECTIVELY AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEES HAVE ALSO SHOWN A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 6,43,012/ - AND RS.13,47,9 56/ - , RESPECTIVELY. THESE AMOUNTS WERE NOT SHOWN IN THE RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 153A, HOWEVER, THESE INCOMES WERE SHOWN IN THE RETURN FILED ORIGINALLY UNDER SECTION 139. THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS INVESTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE. ACCORDINGLY, EXEMPTION UNDER IT (SS) A NO S . 6&7 /20 1 2 3 SECTION 54F WAS CLAIMED. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES BY OBSERVING THAT NO PROOF WHATSOEVER WAS ENCLOSED ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER SECTION 139. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISAL LOWED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5 . THE ASSESSEE S PREFERRED APPEAL S BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) , WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THE AC TION OF THE AO . 6 . AGGRIEVED THEREBY, THE ASSESSEE S ARE IN APPEAL HERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7 . AFTER C ONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FOUND THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEES DESERVE TO SUCCEED ON THIS ISSUE INVOLVED. IT IS NOTICED THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE FOR THE EARLIER YEAR. THE ASSESSEES PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT(A) , WHO DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54F. NO APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03. FACTS ARE SIMILAR, THEREFORE, BOTH THE ASSESSEES SHOULD BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F. THIS IS NOT A CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE RETURN AS THE ASSESSEES HAVE SHOW N IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN IN RESPECT TO THEIR CLAIMS OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND DEDUCTION. IT CAN BE EASILY VER IFIABLE THAT WHAT INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN HOUSE CONSTRUCTION AND THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE AS PER PROVISION OF LAW. THEN IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, DEDUCTION/EXEMPTION IS TO BE ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE EXEMPTION IT (SS) A NO S . 6&7 /20 1 2 4 CLAIMED UND ER SECTION 54F IN BOTH THE APPEALS AFTER VERIFYING THE FACTUAL ASPECT . WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 8 . IN THE RESULT , BOTH THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE S ARE ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE E - COURT ON THIS 1 ST DAY OF FEB , 201 3 . - 201 3 SD/ - SD/ - ( ) ( RAJENDRA ) ( ) ( R.K.GUPTA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 01 / 02 / 201 3 . /PKM , PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / THE CIT(A) , MUMBAI / NAGPUR . 4. / CIT 5. / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI / NAGPUR . 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT, MUMBAI