Forum
Read and express views
× Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India

These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.

09-04-2019, Roop Narayan Sharma, Section 147, 148, 292B, Tribunal Jaipur

  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
2 months 1 week ago #9110 by amit
Section - 147, 148, 292B, 292BB, 2(14), 54B, 54F
Order Date - 09-04-2019
Favouring - Assessee
Court - Tribunal Jaipur
Appellant - ITO
Respondent - Roop Narayan Sharma
Justice - RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & VIJAY PAL RAO, JM
Citation - 419Taxpundit145
Appeal No. - ITA No. 505/JP/2016
Asstt. Year - 2007-08

Order

PER : R.C. SHARMA, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A)-I. Jaipur dated 05/02/2016 for the A.Y. 2007-07 in the matter of order passed U/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).

2. First, we take up the appeal filed by the department wherein the revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to re-compute the Long Term Capital Gain holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction uls 54F in respect of full value of consideration received by the assessee and not the value taken by the sub registrar for the purposes of stamp duty.

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in a lowing relief of Rs. 66,00,000/-out of total addition of Rs. 81,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained bank deposits on the basis of additional evidences, which were never submitted before the AO despite providing various opportunities by the AO.

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 66,00,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 81,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained bank deposits on the basis of additional evidences, which were admitted without satisfying the conditions mentioned in Rule 46A of the IT Rules.”

3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that during the year under consideration, the assessee has sold its agricultural land. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of the information that the assessee had purchased an immoveable property and in absence of any return, source was not verifiable. In response to notice u/s 148, the appellant had filed his return declaring income from agriculture and bank interest. The assessee alongwith his three brothers had sold two agricultural lands admeasuring 40.30 Bighas for Rs. 6.80 Crores (in which share of the appellant is Rs. 1.70 Crore butvalued by registering authority at Rs. 8.02 Crores in which share of the assessee is calculated at Rs. 2,00,50,000) and reinvested for purchase of agricultural lands as well as for purchase of residential house. Since as per opinion of the assessee the said lands were not capital assets u/s 2(14) of the Act and hence no such transaction of sale of agricultural lands was shown in the return filed in pursuance to notice u/s 148. During the assessment proceedings the AO not convinced with the arguments and submissions taxed the capital gain by curtailing eligible deductions to the assessee u/s 54B and u/s 54F of the Act. During the reassessment proceedings, the A O. found that out of the sale proceeds, the assessee acquired residential house for which deduction was claimed U/s 54F of the Act in respect of value of consideration paid by the assessee. As per the A.O., the assessee is entitled for deduction U/s 54F of the Act only if the assessee has invested full amount of sale consideration of agricultural land as taken by the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of stamp duty. Thus, the A.O. restricted the deduction claimed U/s 54F of the Act. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) directed the A.O. to allow exemption U/s 54F in respect of full value of consideration received by the assessee and not the value taken by the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of stamp duty. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in further appeal before the ITAT.

4. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record that during the year, the assessee had sold agricultural land of Rs. 70.00 lacs which was valued by the Registering Authority at Rs. 1,00,50,000/- and it had invested Rs. 35,26,740/- for purchase of residential house. The assessee claimed exemption U/s 54F of the Act in respect of actual amount of sale consideration received by him and not on the amount adopted for stamp duty purposes. However, the A.O. allowed a sum of Rs. 30,98,385/- as deduction U/s 54 by taking the amount invested at Rs. 33,26,700/-. The ld. CIT(A) has correctly held that the assessee is entitled for deduction U/s 54F in respect of full value of consideration received and not the value taken by the Sub-Registrar for the purposes of stamp duty. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Nilofar Singh, which has been followed by the ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Nand Lal Sharma Vs. ITO (2015) 61 taxmann.com 271 (JP Trib) 61 taxmann.com 271 and also in the case of Gyan Chand Batra 133 TTJ 482, respectfully following the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in directing the A.O. to allow the assessee’s claim of deduction U/s 54F of the Act in respect of full value of consideration actually received by him.

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of ITO vs. Roop Narayan Sharma

Unable to display Google Map.




Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.102 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

BEST CYBERCITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs ITO

BEST CYBERCITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs ITO

BEST CYBERCITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs ITO Read More
PUNEET SHARMA vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

PUNEET SHARMA vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

PUNEET SHARMA vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS Read More
CIT vs HONDA CARS INDIA LTD.

CIT vs HONDA CARS INDIA LTD.

CIT vs HONDA CARS INDIA LTD. Read More
PCIT vs. ROYAL AND SUN ALLIANCES IT SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

PCIT vs. ROYAL AND SUN ALLIANCES IT SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

PCIT vs. ROYAL AND SUN ALLIANCES IT SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles

 

SITE INFORMATION

All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Company Master Data Since 1900. More than 1.75 Million Records. Register/Login to get FREE access. Read more
Toggle Bar