ITO, Meerut V. Sh. Subhash Chand, Meerut

MA 398/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6022 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KISHORE

Judgement Text

MA NO.398 IN I.T.A. NO.4928 /DEL/09 1/4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISC. APPLICATION NO.398/DEL/2010 IN I.T.A. NO.4928/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ITO, SHRI SUBASH CHAND, WARDF-2 (3), C/O SHRI VK GOEL, MEERUT. V. 282-BOUNDARY ROAD, CIVIL LINES, MEERUT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AHPQG AHPQG AHPQG AHPQG- -- -1287 1287 1287 1287- -- -N NN N APPELLANT BY : SHRI B. KISHORE, SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA, AM: THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE REVENUE POINTIN G OUT SOME MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 5.3.2010. IT HA S BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE IN THE MISC. APPLICATION THAT THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE MISREPRESENTED THE FACTS OF THIS CASE REGARDING LAND HOL DING BY THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE MISC. APPLICATIO N THAT IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED THAT THE LAND HOLDING WAS MERELY 20 PUCKKA BIGHA WHILE ACTUAL LAND HOLDING IS 1.525 HECTARE ONLY WHICH COME S TO 19.06 KACHHA BIGHA. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME @ `.2500/- PER KACHA BIGHA AND HENCE THE AGR ICULTURAL INCOME MA NO.398 IN I.T.A. NO.4928/DEL/09 2/4 FOR LAND HOLDING OF 19.06 KACHHA BIGHA COMES TO `.47 ,650/- ONLY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE SAME AT HIGHER SIDE AT `.55,000/- WHICH DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. IT IS A REQUEST OF THE REVENUE IN THE MISC. APPLICATION THAT THE FACTS MISREPRESENTED BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE RECTIFIED. 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, LD DR OF THE R EVENUE REITERATED THE SAME FACTS WHICH ARE STATED BY THE REVE NUE IN THE MISC. APPLICATION. AS AGAINST THIS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO MISREPRESENTATION BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN T HE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GO NE THROUGH THE RECORDS INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, OR DER OF LD CIT(A) AND THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA NO.2 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER THAT IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT HE OWNS 70.20 KACHHA BIGHAS OF LAND AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAV E ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. ON THE BASIS OF THIS SUBMISSION OF THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS APPEAL. REGARDI NG THIS ASPECT THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS 70.20 KACHHA BIGHAS OF LAND, WE FI ND THAT SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO BUT THE SAME WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THI S BASIS THAT AS PER KSHARA KHATAUNI OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HOLDS 1.9040 HECTARE AGRICU LTURAL HOODING AND OUT OF WHICH, 0.379 HECTARE LAND HAS BEE N SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ON 18.8.2003 AND THEREFORE IN THE PRESENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 1.525 HECTARE ONLY. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT AFTER CONVERTING THE SAME INT O BIGHAS, THE TOTAL AGRICULTURAL HOLDING COMES TO 19.06 KACHHA BIG HAS AS ONE HECTARE MA NO.398 IN I.T.A. NO.4928/DEL/09 3/4 IS EQUAL TO 12.5 KACHHA BIGHAS. THERE IS NO FINDING GI VEN BY THE LD CIT(A) REGARDING THE AREA OF LAND HOLDING BY THE ASSE SSEE ALTHOUGH LD CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS BASIS T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO BASIS FOR SHOWING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT ` .1.79 LAKHS. IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DE CIDED ON THIS BASIS THAT THE LAND HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE WAS 70.20 KACH HA BIGHAS WHICH IS ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSION OF LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA NO.2 OF TH E TRIBUNAL ORDER BUT THERE IS NO BASIS REGARDING THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE IS 70.20 KACHHA BIGHAS. THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER IS ON THE BASIS OF KHASRA KHATAUNI OF AGRICULTURAL HOLD ING SHOWING LAND HOLDING OF 1.9040 HECTARE OUT OF WHICH, THERE IS SUB SEQUENT SALE OF 0.379 HECTARE OF LAND AND THEREFORE, THE BALANCE LA ND HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINS OF 1.525 HECTARES ONLY. NO MISTAKE HAS BEE N POINTED OUT IN THIS FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY BRINGING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT ACTUAL LAND HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MORE THAN 1.525 HECTARES. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ONE HECTRARE IS EQ UAL TO 12.5 KACHHA BIGHA AND ON THIS BASIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT THE LAND HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE AT 19.06 KACHHA BIGHA. NO MISTAKE HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THIS WORKING OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT ONE HECTARE OF LAND IS EQUAL TO 12.5 KACHHA BIGHA OF LA ND. UNDER THIS FACTUAL POSITION, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH LD DR OF THE REVENUE THAT A MISTAKE HAS CREPT IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER REGARDING AC TUAL LAND HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE WE FEEL THAT THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER SHOULD BE RECALLED FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER VERIFYING THE FAC TUAL POSITION REGARDING ACTUAL LAND HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THER EFORE, RECALL THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THIS AP PEAL FOR HEARING IN DUE COURSE. NOTICE OF HEARING IS TO BE ISSUED TO BOTH SIDES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED. MA NO.398 IN I.T.A. NO.4928/DEL/09 4/4 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH JANUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 14.1.2011. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI).