The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 V. Sri. Krishna Chigullapally

ITTA/40/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4, Hyderabad against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which had remanded the matter back to the assessing officer. The dispute centered on the assessment year 2008-09 and involved questions regarding the applicability of certain exemptions under the Income Tax Act to the land sold by the respondent, Sri. Krishna Chigullapally. The Tribunal had previously found that there was no clarity on the basic charging issue and had remanded the matter for a detailed reassessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 720166 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Siddharth J Desai (1983) 139 ITR 628 (Guj), Sarifa BIBI Mohammed reported in (1993) 204 ITR 631 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Keywords: Agricultural Land; Assessment Year 2008-09; Capital Gains; Exemptions; Final Fact Finding Authority; Income Tax
• Section: 2(14); 260-4; 2(41)(v)

Judgement Text

"[ 3311 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO:40 OF 2022 (lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' B ', Hyderabad in ITA No.909/Hyd12016, for Assessment Year 2008-09, dated 23-07-2021, preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)7, Hyderabad, ITA No.1066/CIT(A)-712O14-15 dated 25-02-2016, preferred against the Order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad PAN/GlR No.ACJpC0242M, dated 20-0'1-2015.) Between: The Pr. Commissioner of lncome-tax-4, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT AND Sri. Krishna Chigullapally, B-13, New Fruit Market Comptex, Kothapet, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad -500 036. PAN. ACJPC 0242 M ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. J. V. PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) DEPT., Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: 1 I I I I i I I i l l' i TII I] I I()N'llt-11 'l H t'. (ll{IEF USTICE AI I] FI U AN AND TFID TION'BI,I] SRI TI E N.TU R l.'f .'l'.A.No.40 of 2022 JUDGLIENT ,r\"' tt.,, ,t\"'|i. t )t,:|t',\" ttl:,t Bt.'rq'an) lrrr l)cpartrnent t()r tll(' tpPCllrrrlt -) 2. 'hethet o,r tltt I-ribtrnll u :ts t.tglt t Ilcrrt: lr. | . ' . l) rrt s.ttl. ltrLrned Senior Standing (lc)Lrnsc[, Incomc ). Lhi: rtlr[)(rtl llrts irtcrl Pl-clerrcd bv thc rcvctltlc as thc aPPcllant Lrndcr Sccu()r) 2(t(.),' of- t[rc lrrcomc 'l'ax Act, 1961 Qlicflv 'the r ct' lrcrcinaftcr) ag,rt'rst thc olclt'r clrtcd 23.01 .2021 passccl by thc Income 'l rx ' ppcll'rtc 'l ribLrnll, llvtle rebad Bench 'B', Flydcrabad (bricfl1' 'the 'l rtl>trnal' ht'rcirr,Litcr) in I 'l'.. Xo.909/Hyd/2016 for rhc assessment lcar 2008 2()()9. fhe appcrl hrts lrt:ctr tiled proposing thc flollorvin€! qucso()ns as substantral (lllcstions ()f lxw: 1. hethcr ,rtr tltc lacts :rnrl trl thc circumstances o[ thc case' is not the dccisi<,n ol tltc 'l ritrurtrl rrl rgnoring the rclevanr and germane materials anrl lrntlirrgs oi tirt assessing officcr and irl takng rnto consiclcr:(io t.t irrelcvant matt:rials bad in law and pcn'crsc and also a lailure to crctt:isc its lLIrischcLion as thc fiflal fact finding atrthorit)'' ? lrLt'ls rLrrr] irt the circumstances ol- thc case. the in ltst,xing the matter back to the filc oI t I 2 asscssirll tifficcr thr-,ugh tirc assellsirll; oiticcr ca t<:gr-r |ic'tll| tlotrilllt orr rt'corti rhat thc asscsscc s illtclluol) is cleatll' lrct rlntl thc lltrtr.tc\"\"'' of the le{:islarlve intcnt and cannot bc classifictl rLs lalllng'vithin thc e xcmptions under Scction 2(14) ot thc , ct ? i. Whetlrer rJn thc facts and in tht' t:ircurns tat lccs of thc casc, rhc '[ ribr-rnai was rig[rt in nc.r t considerine the fat:t that tltc asscsst'c s case talls within one of the condrtions' uameh'. rX/hethcr an agriculnrrist would purclrase thc lantl fot algiculrural purposes at rltc Price at rvhich thc land rvas sold and whethct the owner rvould havc evcr sold thc land i'aluing it rs a properr'v yieldrng agricultutal produce on the bisis of its f ield following the law laid down by the Gujarar High (.ourt in the t:asc c,f CIT v. Siddharth J Desai (1983) 139 I-fR 628 (tiui ) rvhich tcst was also considered by the Supreme (lourt in thc case ol' Sarifa BIBI Mohammed reportcd in (1993) 204 I'fR 631 (S(). datcd 23.01 .2021, we Frnd that Tribunal as a mattct o[ fact has rcmanded the matter back to the file o[ thc assessing officer by allowing the appeal. Relevant portion oF thc order of thc T'ribunal aated 23.07.2021 reads as [ollows: We have given our thoughtftrl consideration to revenue's [crregoing contendons. Wc find no rcason to sustain e itl-rer party's submissions in cntirety. We make it clcar first of all that therc is no clarity on the basic chnching issue as to rvhether the lands 4. Orr going through the order of the Tnbunal I t I 3 c()aa(''lc(l I.,.rltq s.l)lr( | .lrrttct: of tlrc imltugncd tra,sfcr- hcrci' [irrrncr' rL ( rl)1ral rrss(r 1r,.. ]ii+)(in)(a) ancl (b) oi rhe cr or rror. ' ltlr,,Lrglr lr,rtlr tlrt kar.r',-1 r't P resc. tarives Iia'c arguctl suitlcic.rlt, o, all rhc ti. rr:q.irp1 rss.( s. .( trncl that thc assessing offlcer as wcll as thc (-l ['i , nou.hcr.r,(.].t)1(,sscd anv opinion on rhc application of thc' lorcqr,inr, sr,.llut()r l-rr(, .rsi()n dcfining a capital tssct which cou[l ]rt, l.t.ld es llr 1rl!l r.is(, ro rhe impugned capital giuns. Dr.l{ajcnrlra l ulnar. rrt thrs slxgs sought to invite our atrention to the Lrct thar rlrcsc lrs5('sscc. l:ltl in fact applied tor pcrmission frorn the Ilvrlt,r:rl;;tl lurrrciPa] rrrholty 'HI ,fDA' vcrv wcll aftcr the impuuncrl tr,lnster lrr ,,r ar , rl- thc JDA as wcll as thc salc dccd (su;rra;- I'lr. l(iro norvhcrc tirspured applicauon of Sccoon 2(41)(v) on the othcr llitn(l. l;acerl wirir tlls srlualiorr. rvc deem it appropriate to restofc thc instrrrrt r:linclrrnq issrrt. lnr l. ro rhe assessing officer to decide tl,rc applicabilin r,ISccriorr 2i 11. ol-rhe Act qaathe assessees'lands sold during thc rcl(, 'anL pn'r'ious r car. It is made clear that the asscssing officcr shall ro by thc corrcsponding municipal lirruts prcscribed by dre oftlcial {'rzcrre n()rification rs appliiable on the date oI transfer only artl no rhcrealter'. Ncedful shall be donc within threc eflective opp rrrturirit.s oi ht uring. It is furthcr madc abundantly clear that .rll thesc assessc('s shall be at libertv to raise all factual/legal sLrbrnissiorrs a: rrrr.udmissible to thcm under the lan. - ll thc:c llcrentrr''s livi rrPperls arc treated as allorvcd frrr statistlcal T)ullx)scs in li)t:eu()tng tenns. A copy o[ this common ordcr bc plat'c,i rn thc r.csper.rrr c casc filcs. I I t I a{!d rhc lr),lttcr rerlanclcd brcl< t() t[rc assessitrg officcr [.,r 5. 'hcn thc appeai of thc rr:rrc:nuc rvas allou,cd bv thc 'l rrbrrnal rcdetclrruniif r, rn, rvc fiil to undcrsrand as tt-' *'hv rhe Prcscnt apnr:rl ha.i bccn llrctcrrcd by the revenuc 6 At this stasc, learned .Se nior Standing Counscl frrr thc :rppcila:, t submits rhar ordcr of the assessirrg officer is a 'v<:ll reasoncc.l one aod thc rcrranr.l orclcr is rery restnctive in narurr:. 1. l),c that rs lt may, sincc thc matter has been remantlccl b;rck t