NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

ITA 1398/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Nanag Ram Meena, the appellant, who contested the reopening of his assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 by the AO under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had reopened the assessment alleging that income had escaped assessment and made additions under the head of Long-Term Capital Gain. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal but upheld the AO's valuation under Section 50C. The Tribunal, however, found merit in the assessee's argument that the actual sale consideration should be considered for the purpose of Section 54F and not the stamp duty valuation under Section 50C. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by various judicial precedents that supported the assessee's position.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668922 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, Raj Kumar Parashar Ajmer Vs. ITO, Gyanchand Batra, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur, Hari Om Gupta v. ITO, CIT vs. Smt. Nilofer Singh, Dhanveer Singh Gambhir vs ITO, Prakash Karnawat vs ITO, Raj Babbar vs ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITA RINES H
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY GUPTA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Capital asset; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains; Rectification of order; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Right to appeal
• Section: 147; 154; 54; 271(1)(c); 54F; 139; 50C

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa a Jh xxu Xkks;y ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1398/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Nanag Ram Meena Block No. A-1, Badgoti Bhawan, Tonk Road, Amali Kothi, Surya Nagar, TonkRoad, Jaipur cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-1 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFDPM 4068 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Vijay Gupta, CA and Ms. Apeksha Kalra, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 26/05/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 23/06/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld CIT(A) dated 17-08-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as NFAC] dated 17.08.2023 for the assessment year 2010-17 raising therein following grounds of appeal:- ‘’1. The Ld. AO has erred in law while reopening the assessment u/s 147 as the transaction was duly declared in the return of income filed by the assessee. The reopening of the assessment was also illegal as no mandatory approval was taken of the PCIT u/s 151 before issuing the notice u/s 148. The action of the Ld. AO was illegal and therefore deserves to be quashed or set aside. 2 ITA NO. 1398/JP/2024 SHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 2. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law while applying sec. 50C in case of sale of Agriculture land. The action of the Ld. A.O. was illegal and therefore deserves to be quashed or set aside. 3. The Ld. AO erred in law while applying section 54F with reference to 50C. The action of the Ld. A.O. was illegal and therefore deserves to be quashed or set aside. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the principle of equality was not followed. The action of the Ld. A.O. was illegal and therefore deserves to be quashed or set aside. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for alleged concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, without recording a clear and specific satisfaction regarding the exact nature of the default, thereby rendering the initiation of penalty proceedings bad in law and unsustainable.\" 2.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 391 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application dated 5-04-2025 for condonation of delay with following prayers. ‘’The delay in filing the present appeal has occurred due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances as detailed herein below. 17.08.2023 First Appeal Order passed by the Hon’ble CIT, Appeals. 20.09.2023 Ld. AO’s Order giving effect to the Appellate order of CIT (A) dated 17.08.2023 with DIN & Letter No ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1056315194(1). 13.12.2023 Grievance raised for rectification vide Ack No. 15582002 Grievance closed on 21.12.2023 stating that appeal effect has been given on 20.09.2023 25.01.2024 Grievance raised for rectification vide Ack No. Grievance closed on 12.02.2024 with DIN & Letter No. ITBA/ADM/S/26/2023- 3 ITA NO. 1398/JP/2024 SHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 16002319 24/1060798674(1) 25.01.2024 Rectification application filed manually before the Ld. ITO-6(4) Rectification order passed by the Ld. ITO- 6(4) on 19.02.2024 with DIN No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1061126362(1) 10.02.2024 Grievance raised for rectification vide Ack No. 16144168 Grievance closed on -11.03.2024 with DIN & Letter No. ITBA/ADM/S/26/2023- 24/1062387275(1) 26.02.2024 Rectification application u/s-154 filed before the Hon’ble CIT, Appeals with reference no. 124187430260224 Order u/s-154 r.w.s. 250 passed on 23.08.2024 with DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/F/154/2024- 25/1067914488(1). The Ld. CIT(A) mentioned that since the assessee had not pointed out any mistake apparent from records in the order, the petition filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed on merits. 25.05.2024 Rectification application filed before the Hon’ble CIT, Appeals with reference no. 240525400250524 Order u/s-154 r.w.s. 250 passed on 13.12.2024 with DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/F/154/2024- 25/1071201859(1). The Ld. CIT(A) clarified the amount of deduction u/s 154 of Rs. 27.50 Lac only. 21.06.2024 Challan Fee of Rs. 10000/- deposited for filing Form-36 ----- 22.06.2024 Form-35 filed against the appeal effect order with Ack No. 476489800220624 Reply filed on 28.10.2024 and the order is pending in the matter. a) The assessee had initially approached the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) and filed multiple rectification applications under Section 154, seeking the correct appeal effect as per the CIT(A) order dated 17.08.2023. b) The rectification applications were disposed of at various stages, leading to ambiguity in the final determination of the correct deduction under Section 54F. The final order under Section 154 r.w.s. 250 was passed on 13.12.2024, clarifying the deduction amount. c) The assessee, in good faith, pursued the matter through grievance redressal mechanisms and rectification applications before approaching the Hon’ble ITAT. As a result, the time elapsed in exhausting the available legal remedies. 4 ITA NO. 1398/JP/2024 SHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR d) The delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence but was caused due to the genuine belief that the matter could be resolved at the lower appellate level, thereby avoiding unnecessary litigation. The assessee respectfully submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have held that technical considerations should not override the cause of substantial justice. The delay in filing the present appeal is bona fide and ought to be condoned in the interest of justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have time and again held that delay should be condoned where it is caused due to genuine reasons, as the right to appeal is a valuable statutory right. Some of the relevant case laws are:- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) – It was held that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and that a liberal approach should be adopted while condoning delay. N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] – It was held that a meritorious matter should not be rejected on technical grounds of limitation. In view of the above, it is humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits in the interest of justice and equity. To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit deposing therein the facts and circumstances as to the delay made in filing the appeal. 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that the reasons advanced by assessee (supra) for condonation of delay of 391 days in filing the above appeal is sufficient to condone the delay which has merit. Thus, we concur with the 5 ITA NO. 1398/JP/2024 SHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR submission of the assessee and condone the delay of 391 days in filing the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. 3.1 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed the Ground No. 1 and 2. Hence, the same are dismissed being not pressed. 4.1 Apropos ground No. 3 of appeal of the assessee, the brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration the assessee has sold agriculture land i.e. tenancy right situated at Khasra No. 23 & 24, Shri Ram Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur for a transaction value of Rs. 27.00 Lac and the value taken by the stamp valuation authority was at Rs. 72.56 Lac. The assessee thereafter purchased a residential house for Rs. 28.05 Lac. The assessee duly disclosed this transaction in his ROI filed. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 on 28.03.2017 on the reason that- “the assessee had not disclosed fully and truly all the materials and facts necessary for the assessment. Therefore, the income to the tune of Rs. 72,56,177/- has escaped assessment. It is noted that the A.O. completed the assessment and passed the assessment order dated 08.12.2017 by 6 ITA NO. 1398/JP/2024 SHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR making an addition of Rs. 45,95,657/- on account of Long-Term Capital Gain. It is further noted that the A.O. initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against the assessee for concealing the particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4.2 The assessee being aggrieved with the order of AO preferred an appeal before ld. CIT (A) who partly allowed the appeal vide its order dated 17.08.2023 by accepting the Ground No.2. The relevant para (Para 4.1, Page No. 7-Last line and page No.8) of the Appellate Order is quoted as under: “Therefore, in the instant case, the provisions of section 54F(1)(a) are complied with by the assessee and the assessee shall be eligible for deduction in respect of the whole of the capital gains so computed under section 45 read with section 48 and section 50C of the Act. The decisions of the Coordinate Benches as referred supra support the case of the assessee. Respectfully following the orders of jurisdictional ITAT, it is held that the appellant shall be eligible for deduction u/s 54F in respect of the full amount invested in the new house property which in this case will be Rs.27,50,000. As a result, ground no 2 is allowed.” 4.3 It is pertinent to mention that the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) clarified its order on 13/12/2024 in response to an application filed by the assessee by restricting the 54F deduction by the A.O. while giving the appeal effect to Rs. 27.50 Lac only. The details of the event held in the present case were as under:- 7 ITA NO. 1398/JP/2024 SHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 17.08.2023 First Appeal Order passed by the Hon’ble CIT, Appeals. 20.09.2023 Ld. AO’s Order giving effect to the Appellate order of CIT (A) dated 17.08.2023 with DIN & Letter No ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1056315194(1). 13.12.2023 Grievance raised for rectification vide Ack No. 15582002 Grievance closed on 21.12.2023 stating that appeal effect has been given on 20.09.2023 25.01.2024 Grievance raised for rectification vide Ack No. 16002319 Grievance closed on 12.02.2024 with DIN & Letter No. ITBA/ADM/S/26/2023- 24/1060798674(1) 25.01.2024 Rectification application filed manually before the Ld. ITO-6(4) Rectification order passed by the Ld. ITO- 6(4) on 19.02.2024 with DIN No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1061126362(1) 10.02.2024 Grievance raised for rectification vide Ack No. 16144168 Grievance closed on -11.03.2024 with DIN & Letter No. ITBA/ADM/S/26/2023- 24/1062387275(1) 26.02.2024 Rectification application u/s-154 filed before the Hon’ble CIT, Appeals with reference no. 124187430260224 Order u/s-154 r.w.s. 250 passed on 23.08.2024 with DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/F/154/2024- 25/1067914488(1). The Ld. CIT(A) mentioned that since the assessee had not pointed out any mistake apparent from records in the order, the petition filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed on merits. 25.05.2024 Rectification application filed before the Hon’ble CIT, Appeals with reference no. 240525400250524 Order u/s-154 r.w.s. 250 passed on 13.12.2024 with DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/F/154/2024- 25/1071201859(1). The Ld. CIT(A) clarified the amount of deduction u/s 154 of Rs. 27.50 Lac only. 21.06.2024 Challan Fee of Rs. 10000/- deposited for filing Form-36 ----- 22.06.2024 Form-35 filed against the appeal effect order with Ack No. 476489800220624 Reply filed on 28.10.2024 and the order is pending in the matter. 8 ITA NO. 1398/JP/2024 SHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR Therefore, the present appeal is filed by the assessee being aggrieved with the order made by the AO and in pursuance of the CIT(A) order dated 17.08.2023 with the clarification of the order provided by the Hon’ble CIT(A) on 13/12/2024. The ld. AR further submitted that without prejudice to the GOA-1 to 2 (supra), under the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO erred in law while applying section 54F with reference to 50C. To this effect, the submissions as made by the ld. AR of the assessee is reproduced as under:- ‘’While computing exemption u/s 54F, the actual sale consideration/net consideration is to be considered and not the stamp duty valuation as specified u/s 50C. The Ld. A.O. while allowing deduction u/s 54F has taken value as assessed by stamp valuation authority instead of net consideration. The summarized position was as under: Particulars As declared As assessed by AO vide order dt. 22/12/2017 CIT (A) order dt. 17.08.2023 To be done Sales Consideration 28,50,000 76,95,967 (50C Value) 76,95,967 (50C Value) 28,50,000/- Less: Transfer Expenses -57,000 -57,000 -57,000 -57,000 Net Consideratio n 27,93,000 76,38,967 76,38,967 27,93,000/- Less: Indexed Cost of Acquisition (2005-06) Rs. 3,67,800*632/ 497 4,67,705 4,67,705 4,67,705 4,67,705 Capital Gain 23,25,295 71,80,672 71,80,672 23,25,295 Less: 23,25,295 25,85,015 27,50,000 22,89,496 9 ITA NO. 1398/JP/2024 SHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR Deduction u/s- 54F Calculation of 54F 23,25,295 71,80,672 (Capital Gain) multiplied by 27,50,000 (Amount invested or transaction value) divided by 76,38,967 (Net Consideration) =7180672*27500 00/7638967 Invested amount only 23,25,295 (Capital Gain) multiplied by 27,50,000 (Amount invested or transaction value) divided by 27,93,000 (Net Consideration) =2325295*27500 00/2793000 Taxable Capital Gain NIL 4,595,657 4,430,672 35,799 So the problem is the calculation of deduction u/s 54F i.e. net consideration based on transaction value or value replaced by 50C provision. The relevant provision u/s 54F are as under: Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. “54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, one residential house in India (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say, (a) if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45 ; (b) if the cost of the new asset is less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: Explanation.—For the purposes of this section— \"net consideration\" in relation to the transfer of a capital asset, means the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital 10 ITA NO. 1398/JP/2024 SHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR asset as reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer. (4) The amount of the net consideration which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilised by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 in an account in any such bank or institution as may be specified in, and utilised in accordance with, any scheme which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame in this behalf and such return shall be accompanied by proof of such deposit ; and, for the purposes of sub-section (1), the amount, if any, already utilised by the assessee for the purchase or construction of the new asset together with the amount so deposited shall be deemed to be the cost of the new asset.” The same is confirmed through various judicial pronouncements. The Hon’ble ITAT, DB Jaipur in the case of Raj Kumar Parashar Ajmer Vs. ITO ITA No. 11/JP/2016 (Copy enclosed) held in para 11 that: - “On perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that where the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45. What is therefore relevant is the investment of the net consideration in respect of the original asset which has been transferred and where the net consideration is fully invested in the new asset, the whole of the capital gains shall not be charged under section 45 of the Act. The net consideration for the purposes of section 54F has been defined as the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset as reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer. In other words, the consideration which is actually received or accrued as a result of transfer has to be invested in the new asset. In the instant case, undisputedly, the consideration which has accrued to the assessee as per the sale deed is Rs 24,60,000 and the whole of the said consideration has been invested in the capital gains accounts scheme for purchase of the new house property which is again not been disputed by the Revenue. The consideration as determined under section 50C based on the stamp duty authority valuation is not a consideration which has been received by or has accrued to the assessee. Rather, it is a value which has been deemed as full value of consideration for the limited purposes of determining the income chargeable as capital gains under section 48 of the Act. Therefore, in the instant case, the provisions of section 54F(1)(a) are complied with by the assessee and the assessee shall be eligible for deduction in respect of the whole of the capital 11 ITA NO. 1398/JP/2024 SHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR gains so computed under section 45 read with section 48 and section 50C of the Act. The decisions of the Coordinate Benches as referred supra support the case of the assessee. The subject issue was not for consideration before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and hence, the same doesn’t support the case of the revenue. We are therefore of the considered view that the provisions of section 50C(1) of the Act are not applicable to section 54F for the purpose of determining the meaning of full value of consideration. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. In case of Gyanchand Batra, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur (ITA No. 9/JP/2010) dated 13th August, 2010 and has held as under: “Capital gains – Exemption under s. 54F – Full Value of consideration vis-a-vis value adopted for stamp duty – Legislaure in its wisdom has referred to s. 48 in s. 50C for adopting the stamp duty value as fair market value – Hence, the deeming fiction as provided in s. 50C in respect of the words ‘full value of consideration’ is to be applied only to s. 48 – words ‘full value of consideration’ as mentioned in other provisions of the Act are not governed by the meaning of these words as mention in s. 50C – Hence, for ascertaining the full value of consideration as mentioned in different provisions except s. 48, consideration specified in sale deed has to be considered – Thus, meaning of full value of consideration as referred to in Explanation to s. 54F(1) is not governed by the meaning of the words ‘full value of consideration’ as mentioned in s. 50C – In the instant case, the cost of new asset us not less than the net consideration – Thus, whole of the capital gain is not chargeable to tax even if the capital gain is computed by taking the value adopted by the stamp registration authority – Hence, the assessee is entitled for exemption under s. 54F.” The Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Nand Lal Sharma, Kota Vs. ITO ITA No. 413/JP/2012 (Copy enclosed) - held that Section 50C is deeming fiction by which stamp duty value of the asset sold is to be substituted for actual consideration. This being purely a fiction, its scope is limited to Section 50C only and cannot be enlarged without a specific reference. In the absence of any enabling statutorily provision, a fiction cannot be imported in another section. This view has been squarely adopted by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Nilofer Singh (supra) and followed it by this Bench ITAT in the case of Gyan Chand Batra vs. ITO (supra). Respectfully following the same, we hold that while computing exemption u/s 54, the actual sale consideration is to be taken into consideration and not the stamp duty valuation u/s 50C. Other similar Judicial Pronouncements: Dhanveer Singh Gambhir vs ITO (2015) 68 SOT 0343 (Indore) • Prakash Karnawat vs ITO (2012) 49 SOT 0160 (JP) • In Raj Babbar vs ITO (2013) 56 SOT 0001 (Mum) 12 ITA NO. 1398/JP/2024 SHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR Thus the ld. AR of the assesee prayed to confirm the calculation of the capital gain upto Rs.35,799/- in consideration of aforesaid judgements cited above . To support the case, the ld.AR of the assessee has filed the paper book whose details are as under:- S.N. Particulars Page No. Submitted before CIT/AO 1. Copy of sale deed dated 25-09-2009 between Nanag Ram Meena and Jai Singh Choudhan amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- 1-9 Both 2. Copy of sale deed dated 25-09-2009 between Nanag Ram Meena and Jai Singh Chouhan amounting to Rs.7,00,000/- 10-17 Both 3. Copy of sale deed dated 25-09-2009 between Nanag Ram Meena and Jai Singh Chouhan amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- 18-25 Both 4. Copy of sale deed dated 25-09-2009 between Nanag Ram Meena and Jai Singh Chouhan amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- 26-34 Both 5. Order passed by the ITAT, Jaipur Bench tiled as Shri Lalit Kumar Kalwar vs ITO, Ward 2(3), Ajmer dated 30- 05-2023 35-65 No 6. Order passed by the ITAT, Jaipur Bench titled as the ITO, Ward 2(1), Ajmer vs Shri Raj Kumar Parashar dated 28-09-2017 66-79 Both 7. Order passed by the ITAT, Jaipur Bench titled as Shri Nand Lal Sharma vs the ITO, Bundi dated 15-05-2015 80-88 Both 8. Order passed by the ITAT, Jaipur Bench titled as Gyan Chand Batra vs ITO, dated 13-08-2010 89-101 Both 9. Order dated 24-01-2019 passed by CIT(A), Damodar Meena 102-105 Both 4.4 On the other hand, the ld.DR supported the order of the AO and submitted following written submission countering the submission of the ld. AR of the assessee. 13 ITA NO. 1398/JP/2024 SHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR ‘’WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE (In continuation of oral arguments dated 26/05/2025) May it please the Hon’bleBench, The Revenue respectfully submits the following written rejoinder in continuation of oral submissions made during the course of hearing held on 26/05/2025, and in response to the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) on the applicability of Section 50C and the computation of exemption under Section 54F. 1. On Non-Challenge of DLC Valuation under the Rajasthan Stamp Act It is respectfully submitted that the assessee has not contested the adoption of DLC valuation under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, nor has any application or reference been made to the Stamp Valuation Officer under Section 47A of the said Act. As held in Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) and consistently reiterated in multiple decisions, unless the assessee disputes the valuation before the appropriate authority under local stamp laws, the DLC value adopted for stamp duty purposes is binding and conclusive for the purpose of computation under Section 50C. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was justified in adopting the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 76,95,967/- as the full value of consideration under Section 50C of the Act. 2. On Ownership and Nature of Asset Transferred The assessee’s contention that only tenancy or leasehold rights were transferred is wholly inconsistent with the documentary record. The sale deeds in question: • Clearly describe the assessee as the full legal owner of the property, • Contain language conveying absolute title and interest, • Do not refer to any limitation on the rights or reference to state ownership or lease allotment. In absence of any lease deed, government allotment, or evidence of tenancy right, the land sold must be treated as capital asset in full ownership, and therefore, Section 50C is fully applicable. Even otherwise, as held by ITAT Lucknow in Hari Om Gupta v. ITO (ITA No. 222/LKW/2013), leasehold rights too are capital assets and subject to Section 50C. 3. On Computation of Deduction under Section 54F It is submitted that the assessee’s claim that the actual sale consideration (Rs. 27,50,000/-) should be considered for deduction under Section 54F is incorrect in law. 14 ITA NO. 1398/JP/2024 SHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR As per settled principles laid down in: • Raj Babbar v. ITO (ITA No. 6497/Mum/2011) • CIT v. K.R. Palanisamy (2008) 306 ITR 61 (Madras HC) the investment for claiming exemption under Section 54F must be evaluated with reference to the net consideration as defined under Section 50C, when the deemed consideration exceeds the declared sale consideration. The reliance placed by the assessee on Nand Lal Sharma v. ITO (ITAT Jaipur) is distinguishable on facts and does not overrule the principle that actual receipt cannot override the statutory fiction under Section 50C when computing capital gains and proportionate exemption under Section 54F. 4. Relief Granted by CIT(A) is Erroneous The Ld. CIT(A), while accepting the actual consideration for purposes of Section 54F, has overlooked the fact that:- • The DLC value was never disputed under the Stamp Act; • The assessee has not proved limited or restricted rights in the property; • The deduction u/s 54F must be allowed proportionately to the deemed sale consideration. Hence, the computation and relief allowed are inconsistent with judicial precedent and the facts of the case. 5. Prayer In light of the above facts, legal principles, and arguments advanced in the course of hearing and reinforced herein, it is most respectfully prayed that: • The relief granted by the CIT(A) be set aside, and  The original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer adopting Section 50C valuation and computing proportionate exemption u/s 54F be restored in full.’’ 15 ITA NO. 1398/JP/2024 SHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 4.5 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is noted from the facts, legal provisions and judicial pronouncements that while computing deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act 1961, the AO has incorrectly applied the stamp duty valuation under section 50C of Rs. 76,95,967/- and calculated capital gain without referring to the provisions contained w.r.t. 54F of the Act for determining the capital gain amount taking into consideration the transaction amount instead of value determined u/s 50C of the Act. It is further noted that AO incorrectly computed the Long-Term Capital Gain i.e. the capital gain of Rs. 71,80,672/- and deduction u/s 54F amounting to Rs 27,50,000.00, after considering ld. CIT (A) order. As per the settled position of law, for the purpose of section 54F the \"net consideration\" refers to the actual consideration received or accrued to the assessee as reduced by transfer expenses, and the deeming fiction under section 50C has no application while computing deduction under section 54F of the Act. The correct legal position has been clarified by the ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Gyan Chand Batra vs ITO (233 TTJ 482) as also followed in Nand Lal Sharma vs ITO (ITA No. 413/JP/2012) wherein it was observed that:- 16 ITA NO. 1398/JP/2024 SHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR ‘’It is pleaded that ITAT Jaipur Judgement in the case of Gyan Chand Batra vs ITO (2010) 233 TTJ 482 adopted the similar view and held that for working out exemption u/s 54 the capital gain is to be determined by referring to sec. 48 i.e. by taking actual sales consideration and not deemed sale consideration i.e. stamp duty value u/s 50C’’ Accordingly, the correct computation of Long Term Capital Gain is as follows:- Full Value of consideration (Actual):- Rs.27,93,000 Indexed Cost of Acquisition & Transfer Expenses: Rs.4,67,705 Capital Gain: Rs. 23,25,295 Deduction u/s 54F: Rs. 22,89,496 Taxable Capital Gain: Rs. 35,799 Hence in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench feels to allow deduction u/s 54F of the Act in accordance with actual net consideration and the settled judicial position and also restrict the taxable capital gain to Rs.35,799/- as computed above. Thus the Ground No. 3 of the assessee is allowed. 5. Since we have allowed the Ground No. 3 of the assessee, therefore, the Ground No. 4 of the assessee is infructuous. 6. As regards the Ground No. 5 of the asessee, it is consequential in nature. 17 ITA NO. 1398/JP/2024 SHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 7. In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated hereinabove. Order pronounced in the open court on 23 /06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu Xkks;y ½ ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ (Gagan Goyal) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 23/06/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Nanag Ram Meena, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward6 (4), Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1398/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "