Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Indore, Indore V. Shri Randhir Gawade, Indore

MA 63/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9371 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K G GOYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S S SOLANKI
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.63/IND/2019 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.538/IND/2017) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ACIT, 1(1) INDORE / VS. SHRI RANDHIR GAWADE 11/5, SOUTH TUKOGANJ, INDORE (MP) ( REVENUE ) ( RE SPONDENT ) P.A. NO. ACKPG1705C REVENUE BY SHRI K. G. GO YA L, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI S.S. SOLANKI, AR DATE OF HEARING: 22.11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07.01.2020 / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: THIS MISC. APPLICATION BY REVENUE SEEKING RECALLING O F THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 07.02.2019 PASSED IN I TA NO.538/IND/2017 ON THE GROUND THAT THE GROUND NO.2 WAS NOT DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. MA NO.63/IND/2019 SHRI RANDHIR GAWADE 2 2. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) REITERATED THE SUBMISSION AS MADE IN THE APPLICATION. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE GROUND NO.2 IS RAISED IN THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS INADVERTENTLY HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT NON ADJUDICATION OF THIS GROUND IS APPAR ENT MISTAKE ON RECORD AND SAME NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS CATEGORICALLY SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION DES PITE THE FINDING BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF UTILIZATION OF AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM CAPITAL GAIN SCHEME FUND AS PRESCRIBED UNDER CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME 1988. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF UTILIZATIO N OF FUND FOR WITHDRAWN OF THE AMOUNT. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE OPPO SED THE SUBMISSIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAK E APPARENT ON RECORD AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THIS ISSUE. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE W HERE THE AO WAS NOT PROVIDED THE DETAILS OF UTILIZATION OF AMOUNT OTHERWISE ALSO THE LAW MANDATES ASSESSEE TO DEPOSIT AMOUNT IN CAPITAL SCHEME ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILI NG OF THE RETURN. IT IS CONTENDED THAT AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED ON MA NO.63/IND/2019 SHRI RANDHIR GAWADE 3 24.07.2013 BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN. THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED COPY OF CAPITAL SCHEME ACCOUNT IN WHICH AMOUNT OF RS.1.8 CRORES DEPOSIT WAS REFLECTED, THEREFORE, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. HE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY AL LOWED THE DEDUCTION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IN PARA 6 HAS HELD AS UNDER: WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADOPTED THE MAR KET VALUE AS PER THE DVOS REPORT. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT A NY OTHER MATERIAL EXCEPT THE VALUATION MADE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AU THORITY. IT IS ALSO NOT STATED AS TO HOW THE DVOS REPORT IS NOT CO RRECT. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A) TO ADOPT THE MARKET VALUE AS PER THE DVOS REPORT. FUR THER, LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. AS THE ASSES SEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F OF TH E ACT AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT AND SO UTILIZED THERE FROM WITHIN THE TIME FRAME AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE LAW, T HE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DEVOID OF MERIT. HENCE WE R EJECT THE SAME. 5. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 5.2 OF HIS O RDER HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED EVIDENCE OF UTILIZATION OF THE MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL SUGGESTING THAT THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED EVIDENCE OF UTILIZATION OF AMOUNT IS NOT CORRECT. UNDER MA NO.63/IND/2019 SHRI RANDHIR GAWADE 4 THESE FACTS WE DO NOT SEE ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS THAT NEEDS RECTIFICATION. THE APPLICATION OF REVENUE IS HENCE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE RE VENUE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 .01.2 020. SD/- (MANISH BORAD) SD/- (KUL BHARAT) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER INDORE; DATED : 07/ 01/2020 CTX? P.S/. . . COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUA RD FILE. BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY/DDO, INDORE