RADHA DEVI SHARMA,DAUSA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAUSA

ITA 1143/JPR/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Smt. Radha Devi Sharma against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the AO's decision regarding the valuation of agricultural land sold by the assessee. The AO had invoked Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the land as immovable property and adopting a higher stamp duty valuation for calculating long-term capital gains. The assessee contested that the land was used exclusively for agricultural purposes and was sold at a lower value due to ongoing disputes and her personal circumstances. The Tribunal noted the assessee's difficulties in presenting her case and the lack of proper consideration of her submissions at earlier stages, leading to the decision to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 28477 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH BADGUJAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR UPADHYAY
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 250; 139(1); 54B; 50C

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No.1143/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 Smt. Radha Devi Sharma Bajrang Nagar, Sainthal Road, Dausa. cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Dausa. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: EMKPS3891F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Dinesh Badgujar, Addl. CIT a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 05/02/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 21 /03/2025 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 08-07-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2014-15 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ITA No. 1143/JPR/2024 Radha Devi Sharma vs. ITO 2 “1. Ld. AO error in considering the agriculture land and considered it as immovable property/land, treating as a long term capital gain. 2. The agriculture land which was sold by assessee used wholly and exclusively for agriculture purposes more than two year. Ld. AO did not pay attention & inquiry properly towards the sale deed registered by the sub- registrar under which it is clearly mentioned that it was the agriculture land which was sold by the assessee. AO have not any kind of strong evidence even she did not take the necessary documentation from the Tehsildar Amer for above agriculture land and consider it as a Non-agriculture land on the basis of her discretion and imposed a wrong taxable capital gain on assessee which is unjust, illegal and not as per the law. 3. The consideration received from the sale of the agriculture land utilized in acquisition of new agriculture land within the specified limit as per mentioned under section 54B of Income tax Act, 1961. 4. Ld. AO error in considering the stamp duty value on highly disputed property.” 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as to invocation of provisions of Section 50C of the Act and the sale consideration for the purpose of LTCG was adopted at Rs.92,20,446/-. The narration as made by the ld.CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:- ‘’4.2 Ground No. 4 4.2.1 during the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the appellant assessee had sold an immovable property on 01.11.2013 for a sale consideration of Rs. 79,51,500/- which was valued at Rs. 92,20,448/- by the stamp valuation authority. Therefore, the AO invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act and the sale consideration for the purpose of calculation of Long-Term Capital Gain was adopted at Rs.92,20,448/-. ITA No. 1143/JPR/2024 Radha Devi Sharma vs. ITO 3 4.2.2. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant has stated that the land sold by the appellant was under litigation and as such could not fetch the Market Rate. The appellant has also submitted certain details of the disputes over the land in question. The details submitted by the appellant were also forwarded to the AO and a remand report was called for. The AO, in the Remand Report dated 27.05.2024, has stated that the land was sold to purchaser claiming it as undisputed in the sale deed and since the market rate is higher than the sale consideration, therefore, provisions of section 50C of the Act are applicable in this case. 4.2.3. In this regard, the appellant, in the rejoinder on remand report, has relied on the land dispute raised by her brother in law. The appellant has stated that the sale deed was prepared by the purchaser of the property and the appellant, being illiterate, only affixed her thumb impression on the sale deed. The appellant has further stated that the purchaser of the property is also involved as a party in a lawsuit currently pending before the concerned forum. 4.2.4. On perusal of the assessment order and remand report of the AO and submissions and rejoinder of the appellant, it is observed that in case of the appellant not in agreement with the valuation of the property by the Stamp Valuation authority, the appellant ought to have raised the issue before the AO during the assessment proceedings as required u/s 50C(2) of the Act, following which the reference could have been made to the District Valuation Officer for valuation of the property. However, it is seen that the appellant has not contested the valuation of property during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, this ground raised by the appellant is dismissed. 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. has filed the following detailed written submission. “The assessee is an individual. The assessee filed his return of income for assessment year 2014-15 on 16.06.2014 ( e filing Acknowledgement no. 194767250160614 ) declaring total income of Rs. 3,25,030/- and tax paid their on Rs. 13,396/-. Further, the case was selected escaping of income and issue of notice under section 148 of income tax Act, 1961 was issued on assessee on 14.02.2020. Assessment has been completed by ld. AO u/s 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on dated 29.09.2021 at Rs. 86,06,478/-. Subsequently appeal was filed through form 35 and granted appeal based on the relevant grounds submitted and the additional evidence. The additional evidence is ITA No. 1143/JPR/2024 Radha Devi Sharma vs. ITO 4 accepted by the department during the appeal proceedings following the provisions of Rule 46A and in good faith. Further based on the evidence the appeal was assessed and completed by issuing order under section 250 of the Act. The appeal was order partially accepted our submission, thereby we make this appeal to the honourable bench of the tribunal. Ground of previous appeal. “1. Ld. AO error in considering the agriculture land and considered it as immovable property/land, treating as a long term capital gain. 2. The agriculture land which was sold by assessee used wholly and exclusively for agriculture purposes more than two year. Ld. AO did not pay attention & inquiry properly towards the sale deed registered by the sub- registrar under which it is clearly mentioned that it was the agriculture land which was sold by the assessee. AO have not any kind of strong evidence even she did not take the necessary documentation from the Tehsildar Amer for above agriculture land and consider it as a Non-agriculture land on the basis of her discretion and imposed a wrong taxable capital gain on assessee which is unjust, illegal and not as per the law. 3. The consideration received from the sale of the agriculture land utilized in acquisition of new agriculture land within the specified limit as per mentioned under section 54B of Income tax Act, 1961. 4. Ld. AO error in considering the stamp duty value on highly disputed property.” Statement of facts and submissions of previous appeal 1. The agriculture land which is in herited by Radha Devi Sharma on the death of her husband which is used by assessee throughout the years in agriculture activity. For your kind reference we provided the following document as mentioned below.  Jamabandi (Vikram Samvat 2062 to 2069) as per annexure1(a)  Girdaavri (Vikram Samvat 2062 to 2069) as per annexure1(b) 2. The assessee sold her agriculture land situated at Village-Amer, Tehsil-Amer, Jaipur in the year 2013 on 11/11/2013 for a sale consideration of Rs. 79,51,500/- and earned a long term capital gain amount of Rs. 62,03,429/- and she utilized such long term capital gain amount in acquisition of new agriculture land amount of Rs. 58,85,000/- and remaining amount of long term capital gain Rs. 3,18,429/- were taxable in the financial year 2013-14 and such amount of capital gain mentioned in ROI and paid tax their on Rs. 13396/-. ITA No. 1143/JPR/2024 Radha Devi Sharma vs. ITO 5 Applicant filed her return of income for assessment year 2014-15 ( F.Y. 2013- 14) on dated 16/06/2014 ( Ack. No. 194767250160614) before the due date of filing of income tax return as per section 139(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Following documents are enclosed-  Income Tax Return & computation for AY 2014-15  Sale deed  Acquisition of new agriculture land as per section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961  Jamabandi and Khasra Girdaavari (Vikram Sanvat 2069 to 2072) 3. The agriculture land which were sold by assessee used wholly and exclusively for agricultureal purposes throughout the years we have produced documents for practicing the agriculture activities more than 2 years from the date of transfer.  Khasra Girdaavari with Khasra Number 4874 4. The amount received from the sale of the agriculture land were utilized by her in the another agriculture land within the time limit specified under section 54B of Income tax Act, 1961. Supported documents are enclosed as follows-  Sale deed  Acquisition of new agriculture land as per section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961 5. Following are the reasons for which Agriculture land sold by the assessee is lower than the DLC value- a. Since applicant is old aged widow lady and do not have any son she has only one daughter and after the daughter marriage she were alone and her son in law is also doing private job so they do not have home to be involved in the matter of the court disputes, she do not have any bread earner in her family and she is also illiterate so, do not have any option other than selling the land so she sold that land at the lower value for her survival. Her brother in laws and other nearby persons wants to grab the land of the applicant by unlawfully and unjust means and they are creating problems for her to cultivate agriculture land and she have no option lapsed other than to sell that land in reduced prise as brother in laws of the assessee threatens to the buyers. ITA No. 1143/JPR/2024 Radha Devi Sharma vs. ITO 6 b. Radha Devi received agriculture land in will on the death of her husband were 0.0871 hector and after the death of rameshwardas, Prabhunarayan, Hanuman, their remaining land was transferred in the name of the heirs of their real brother Moolchand, by Tehsildar Amer’s decision dated 19.03.2012 which is under court case No. 56/2011, under section 135(2) of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1955, the mutation number 1303 under which 0.6104 hector agriculture land were received by the assessee dated 29.03.2012, then assessee total share of agriculture land through inheritance by Tehsildar Amer decision and by will on the death of her husband were 0.6975 Hector through decision given by Hehsidar Amer dated 19.03.2012 and mutation dated 29.03.2012 her share were 0.6104 then assessee total share of agriculture land through inheritance by Tehsildar Amer decision and by will on the death of her husband were 0.6975 Hector. i. Decision given by Tehsildar Amer 19.03.2012 and mutation dated 29.03.2012 ii. Brother in laws of the applicant in manipulation intend to open the mutation of the land in their name excluding the name of applicant and moved application no. 56/2011 before Tehsildar Amer under section 135(2) of LR Act. However, in enquiry tehsildar found that applicant isd also entitlted of the land as such mutation opened in favour of the Radha Devi along with her brother in laws. c. But her brother-in –law was not satisfied by the order passed by the Tehsildar Amer dated 19.03.2012 and mutation dated 29.03.2012 and challenged the above decision through appeal before ADM-3 52/2012 and such appeal is still pending before 52/2012 ADM-3 Jaipur. d. Decision given by Tehsildar Amer 19.03.2012 against the order mutation dated on 29.03.2012. A third person Gananand also filed an appeal no. 165/2012 and 166/2012 before divisional commissioner vide order dated 17.12.2013 quashed the order ofmutation dated 19.03.2012 passed by the Tehsildar Amer. Copy of order dated 17.12.2013 passed in appeal no. 165/2012 and appeal no. 166/2012. e. Against the order dated 17.12.2013 applicant have to prefer and appeal no. 7203/2013 and 7205/2013 before board of revenue and learned board of revenue Ajmer vide order dated 13.01.2017 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back for reconsideration then appeal. f. Then Gajanand filed appeal against the order appeal number 36/17 and 37/17 were present under the DCA Jaipur and order was passed in the favour of Radha Devi Sharma and Gajanand was not satisfied by the above decision and filed an appeal before Revenue Board Ajmer and which is still pending. ITA No. 1143/JPR/2024 Radha Devi Sharma vs. ITO 7 g. A another person Rajendra Kumar Saini who is neighbor of Radha Devi Sharma also tried to grab the land of the applicant by preparing f fake sale agreement dated 16.07.2012 and FIR No. 04/2014 was also made against the Rajendra Kumar Saini. The FIR was lodged at Bani Park, thana Jaipur, which was found to be false after the investigation by the police. As per the Jamabandi such property still disputed and SDM imposed stay on such property. We have inclosed the supporting document (Jamabandi “vikram Sanvat 2074 to 2077) Ground of new appeal 1. Vilation of natural justice: That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case the undersign of the respective orders above mentioned has not adequately considered that the assessee is a super senior citizen who is till date continuing her litigations in different forms with respect to sale of this land and in disagreement of fact that there is reasonable cause. The conclusion & inference of AO are based is completely not relying on all documents presented and not considering the instance of the case. 2. Factual and circumstantial deficiencies: a . The Assessing Officer did not provide adequate time to present the facts and circumstances of the case and was erred in facts and circumstances subsequently considered to be substantial to the case. b . The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in fact that appellant not in agreement with the valuation of the property by the stamp Valuation authority, the appellant ought to have raised the issue before the AO during the assessment proceedings as required u/s 50C(2) of the Act, following which the reference could have been made to the District Valuation office4r for valuation of the property. h. During the assessment proceeding the assessee was given limited opportunity to be heard as there was discrepancy prevailing the PAN Card number of assessee the Assessing Officer in his assessment order clearly mentions the same: ****************************** (Extract of the relevant part of the order is provided above) ITA No. 1143/JPR/2024 Radha Devi Sharma vs. ITO 8 ii. within the given very limited time the assessee could not provide all the relevant details as the information require time to procure. iii. Subsequently during the first appeal through grounds of appeal number 4 and the respective submission on the ground assessee claimed before the authority the non- agreement with the stamp duty value. 3. The appellant crave leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. Our submission and prayers 1. Considering the grounds of previous appeal, submissions there on and the circumstances of the case it is prayed that we are given a fair opportunity to be heard before the Tribunal. 2. Considering grounds of new appeal, it is therefore prayed that the order of Assessing Officer u/s 147 AY 2014-15 and subsequent partially accepted order in appeal u/s 250 kindly taken into consideration to be quashed, set aside, annulled or modified. 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any submission and prayers or add a new submission and prayers which may be necessary. Hoping that facts and circumstances relevant to the case will be considered to the best. “ It is also pertinent to mention that the ld. AR of the asssessee prayed that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to contest the case before the AO as the AO had passed an ex-parte order holding that no documents were advanced before him. 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR supported the order of the lower authorities. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this ground, the AO during the course of assessment ITA No. 1143/JPR/2024 Radha Devi Sharma vs. ITO 9 proceedings noticed that the assessee had sold an immovable property on 01-11-2013 for a sale consideration of Rs.79,51,500/- which was valued at Rs.92,20,448/- by the Stamp Valuation Authority. Therefore, the AO invoked the provision of Section 50C of the Act and the sale consideration for the purpose of calculation of long term capital gain was adopted at Rs.92,20, 446/- which has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) holding as under:- ‘’4.2.4 …… It is observed that in case of the appellant not in agreement with the valuation of the property by the Stamp Valuation authority, the appellant ought to have raised the issue before the AO during the assessment proceedings as required u/s 50C(2) of the Act, following which the reference could have been made to the District Valuation Officer for valuation of the property. However, it is seen that the appellant has not contested the valuation of property during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, this ground raised by the appellant is dismissed. The Bench observed from the assessment order that no reply had been received from the assessee as to the working of the long term capital gain as claimed by the assessee in the computation of total income and also proof of cost of acquisition and thus the AO proceeded with materials available on record as on date. It is also noted from the assessment order that the AO has not accepted the claim of the assessee holding at para 4 his order as under:- ‘’4. ……Further no evidence has been submitted by the assessee for it being an agriculture land and the location distance of the land from Municipal limits etc. so that the ITA No. 1143/JPR/2024 Radha Devi Sharma vs. ITO 10 nature of the land can be ascertained. Further in the absence of any proper and concrete documentary evidence given by the assessee, it is difficult to accept the claim of the assessee for exemption. Therefore, the undersigned is left with no option but not to accept the claim of the assessee regarding the exemption in absence of no/proper documents supporting the claim.’’ Thus the AO and the ld.CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. It is further noted from the submissions of the assessee that the assesee is an elderly widow with no son and she is also illiterate. It appears from the entire conspectus of the case the assessee being an old lady and illiterate could not pursue her case before the AO and the ld.CIT(A) and also could not submit the documentary evidence to safeguard her interest. It is also noted from the order of the ld.CIT(A) who mentioned in his order as under;- ‘’4.2.4. On perusal of the assessment order and remand report of the AO and submissions and rejoinder of the appellant, it is observed that in case of the appellant not in agreement with the valuation of the property by the Stamp Valuation authority, the appellant ought to have raised the issue before the AO during the assessment proceedings as required u/s 50C(2) of the Act, following which the reference could have been made to the District Valuation Officer for valuation of the property. However, it is seen that the appellant has not contested the valuation of property during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, this ground raised by the appellant is dismissed. It shows that the ld. CIT(A) had also recommended that in case the assessee was not in agreement with the valuation of the property by the Stamp Valuation Authority, the assessee ought to have raised the issue before the AO but this thing has not occurred. However, the Bench taking into consideration the facts and circumstances in the case of the assessee ITA No. 1143/JPR/2024 Radha Devi Sharma vs. ITO 11 feels that one more chance should be given to the assessee to contest the case before the AO and the assessee is directed to submit all the concerning documents before the AO to settle the dispute in question. Since it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, she could not put forth her defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing her case. However, we are of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. ITA No. 1143/JPR/2024 Radha Devi Sharma vs. ITO 12 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21 /03/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 21 /03/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Radha Devi Sharma, Dausa. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Dausa. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 1143/JPR/2024} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "