tax officer rajendra bastimal chordiya vs income · 2019-07-30 · rajendra bastimal chordiya vs...
TRANSCRIPT
30/07/2019 Riverus
https://incometax.riverus.in/caseview/RAJENDRA_BASTIMAL_CHORDIYA_vs_INCOME_TAX_OFFICER/YXBwZWFsSWQ9ODM3NDAmZmlsZUlkPTc1OTc4NQ== 1/3
PuneITAT
MembersSushmaChowla
AnilChaturvedi
Lawyers(Assessee)P.S.Shingte
Lawyers (Revenue)N.AshokBabu
Timeline
ITATPUNE
22May2017
Case�led
19Sep2018
Hearing
15Oct2018
Hearing
31Jan2019
Listedfor
hearing
07Jun2019
Judgement
RAJENDRABASTIMALCHORDIYAvsINCOMETAXOFFICER
07.06.2019 IncomeTax1295-PUN-2017
TextHighlight
Issues&Groundsof
appeal
Arguments Holding&
Outcome
1.Thisappeal�ledbytheassesseeisemanatingoutofthe
orderofCommissionerofIncomeTax(A)1,Nashikdated
01.03.2017fortheassessmentyear2013-14.
2.Therelevantfactsasculledoutfromthematerialonrecord
areasunder:-electronically�ledhisreturnofincomeforA.Y.
2013-14on25.02.2014declaringtotalincomeatRs.2,76,967/-.
Thecasewasselectedforscrutinyandthereafter,assessment
wasframedu/s143(3)oftheActvideorderdt.08.12.2015and
thetotalincomewasdeterminedatRs.13,01,560/-.Aggrieved
bytheorderofAO,assesseecarriedthematterbeforeLd.CIT(A)
whovideorderdated01.03.2017(inappeal
No.Nsk/CIT(A)-1/588/2015-16)dismissedtheappealofthe
assessee.AggrievedbytheorderofLd.CIT(A),assesseeisnow
inappealbeforeusandhasraisedthefollowinggrounds:
“1.Onthebasisofthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthe
case,theLearnedCommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals)erred
incon�rmingdisallowanceofproportionateexemptionofRs.
10,24,588/-claimedu/s54BoftheI.T.Actwithoutappreciating
thefactthatagriculturallandwhichwassoldwasusedfor
agriculturepurposesintwoyearsimmediatelyprecedingthe
dateofitstransfer.TheAppellantpraysthatdisallowance
madeofRs.10,24,588/-maypleasebedeleted.
2.WithoutprejudicetoGroundNo.1andonthebasisofthe
factsandinthecircumstancesofthecase,theLearned
CommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals)erredincon�rmingthe
disallowancewithoutappreciatingthefactthatobservationsin
assessmentorderthatAuthorisedRepresentativeofthe
appellantwasconfrontedandheagreedforthedisallowance,
arewrongandcontrarytothefactsonrecords.Noopportunity
ofbeingheardwasgiventoappellantbythelearnedAO.The
AppellantpraysthatdisallowancemadeofRs.10,24,588/-may
pleasebedeleted.”
3.Boththegroundsbeinginterconnectedareconsidered
together.
LawReferred
IncomeTaxAct,1961
Section143(3),Section54B
CaseMap
Thiscaserefersto:
DeputyCommissionerOfIncome-tax
VsShriMaheshDanabhaiPatel
SEARCH HOME COURTS SUPERSEARCH PROFILE OJASWI
INDAP
30/07/2019 Riverus
https://incometax.riverus.in/caseview/RAJENDRA_BASTIMAL_CHORDIYA_vs_INCOME_TAX_OFFICER/YXBwZWFsSWQ9ODM3NDAmZmlsZUlkPTc1OTc4NQ== 2/3
4.Duringthecourseofassessmentproceedings,AOnoticed
thatassesseehadsoldagriculturallandatGutNo.247atTitoli
forRs.50lakhs(assessee’ssharebeing1/3rdamountingto
Rs.16,66,667/-).Assesseehadshownlongtermcapitalgainsof
Rs.12,64,923/-beinghisshare.Itwasstatedthatassesseehad
investedthecapitalgainsforpurchaseofanotheragricultural
landandaccordinglyhadclaimedexemptionu/s54BoftheAct.
Theassesseewasaskedtoproduce
7/12extractoflandforsaleoflandandjustifytheclaimof
exemptionu/s54BoftheAct.Onperusing7/12extractandthe
con�rmationofTalathiofTitoli,AOnoticedthatoutofthe
totalareaof1hectare12R,ricewasgrownonlyon0.20Rpiece
oflandandthebalancelandof0.81Rwasnonagriculturalland.
AOnotedthatnodocumentaryevidenceforcarryingoutany
agriculturalactivitiesontheaforesaidlandwasbroughton
record.AOfurthernotedthattheAuthorisedRepresentativeof
theassesseeagreedforproportionatedisallowance.AO
accordinglyworkedouttheinvestmentsatRs.10,24,588/-
beingnotallowableu/s54BoftheActanddisallowedthesame.
AggrievedbytheorderofAO,assesseecarriedthematter
beforeLd.CIT(A),whoupheldtheorderofAObynotingthefact
thattheAuthorisedRepresentativeoftheassesseehadagreed
forproportionatedisallowanceatthetimeofassessment
proceedingsandthereforehecannotrevertback.Shethus
upheldtheorderofAO.AggrievedbytheorderofLd.CIT(A),
assesseeisnowbeforeus.
5.Beforeus,Ld.A.R.reiteratedthesubmissionmadebeforeAO
andLd.CIT(A)andsubmittedthatneithertheA.R.ofthe
assesseewasconfrontednorhisA.R.agreedforproportionate
disallowance.HefurthersubmittedthatAOdidnotgrant
opportunityofbeingheardbeforemakingdisallowanceof
proportionateexemptionu/s54BoftheActandthereby
violatedtheprinciplesofnaturaljustice.Insupportofhis
aforesaidcontentions,hepointedtocopyofsubmissionsmade
beforeLd.CIT(A)andwhichareplacedatPage3ofthePaper
Book.Onthemerits,hepointedtothemapofthelandwhichis
placedatPageNo.39ofthePaperBook.Fromtheaforesaid
map,hepointedthatthelandisonebuthavingdi�erentsurvey
numbers.Hethereafterpointedtothecopyof7/12extracts
whichareplacedatPageNos.37and39ofthePaperBookand
pointedtothecropwhicharegrownintheaforesaidland.He
thereaftersubmittedthattheprovisionsofSec.54BoftheAct
mandatesthatthelandshouldbeusedforagriculturalpurpose
intheimmediatelytwoprecedingyearspriortothedateof
transfer.Thelawdoesnotrequirethatentirelandshouldbe
usedforcultivationpurposeorthelandshouldbeusedfor
agriculturepurposethroughouttheyears.Hesubmittedthat
evenifapartofthelandisusedforagriculturalpurposebythe
assesseethenassesseeiseligibleforclaimofdeductionu/s54B
oftheActandinsupportofhisaforesaidcontention,heplaced
relianceonthedecisionofPuneTribunalinthecaseofDCITVs.
ShriMaheshDanabhaiPatel(ITANo.1534/PUN/2015order
dated31.01.2018).HethereforesubmittedthattheAOwasnot
justi�edindenyingtheclaimofdeduction.Ld.D.R.ontheother
SEARCH HOME COURTS SUPERSEARCH PROFILE OJASWI
INDAP
30/07/2019 Riverus
https://incometax.riverus.in/caseview/RAJENDRA_BASTIMAL_CHORDIYA_vs_INCOME_TAX_OFFICER/YXBwZWFsSWQ9ODM3NDAmZmlsZUlkPTc1OTc4NQ== 3/3
hand,supportedtheorderofAOandLd.CIT(A).Hefurther
submittedthatastheauthorizedrepresentativeoftheassessee
admittedbeforeAOfortheproportionatedisallowance,the
assesseenowcannottakeadi�erentstand.Hethussupported
theorderoflowerauthorities.
6.Wehaveheardtherivalsubmissionsandperusedthe
materialonrecord.Theissueinthepresentgroundiswith
respecttothedenialofclaimofdeductionu/s54BoftheActfor
thereasonthatthelandwasnotcultivable.We�ndthatthe
reasonfordenyingtheclaimofdeductionu/s54BoftheAct
wasforthereasonthatoutofthetotalareaof1hectare12R,
agriculturalactivitieswerecarriedoutonaportionoftheland
andtherewasnoevidenceofcropgrownonthebalanceportion
oftheland.Beforeus,itisassessee’ssubmissionthattheentire
landisonelandandthefactthatcropwasgrowninportionof
landisnotdisputed.We�ndthattheCo-ordinateBenchofthe
TribunalinthecaseofShriMaheshDanabhaiPatel(supra)has
heldthatprovisionsofSec.54BoftheActdoesnotspecifythat
theentirelandshouldbeusedforcultivationforclaiming
bene�tu/s54BoftheAct.Itheldthatifanypartofthelandis
undercultivationfortwoyearsimmediatelytwopreceding
yearspriortothedateoftransfer,itwouldbesu�cientto
claimbene�tu/s54BoftheAct.Beforeus,Revenuehasnot
placedanycontrarybindingdecisioninitssupportnorhas
placedanymaterialonrecordtodemonstratethatthe
aforesaiddecisioninthecaseofDCITVs.ShriMahesh
DanabhaiPatel(supra)hasbeensetasideorstayedbythe
higherJudicialAuthorities.We�ndthatAOhasnotedthatA.R
oftheassesseeagreedfordisallowanceandthereforetheAO
proceededwithproportionatedisallowance.Ontheotherhand,
itisassessee’scontentionthatthestatementofAOoftheA.R
havingagreedfordisallowanceisfactuallyincorrect.Inthe
presentcase,weareoftheviewthatsincetheissueonmeritsis
coveredinassessee’sfavourbythedecisionofPuneITAT,cited
hereinabove,thenmerelybecauseofadmissionof
disallowance,theassesseecannotbedeniedthebene�tto
whichheiseligible.WethereforefollowingthedecisionofCo-
ordinateBenchoftheTribunalinthecaseofShriMahesh
DanabhaiPatel(supra)areoftheviewthattheAOwasnot
justi�edindenyingtheclaimofdeductionu/s54BoftheAct
andwethereforedirecttheAOtodeducttheclaim.Thus,the
groundsofassesseeareallowed.
7.Intheresult,theappealofassesseeisallowed.
Orderpronouncedon7thdayofJune,2019.
Yamini
Termsandconditions Privacypolicy
Aboutthedata
Copyright©2019.RiverusTechnologySolutionsPvt.Ltd.AllRights
Reserved.| | [email protected]
SEARCH HOME COURTS SUPERSEARCH PROFILE OJASWI
INDAP