Mr. Samay Singh, Rewari v. ITO, Rewari

ITA 1833/DEL/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 183320114 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN ACGPS7301G
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1833/DEL/2013
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant Mr. Samay Singh, Rewari
Respondent ITO, Rewari
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 10-10-2013
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 01-04-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI. G.D.AGRAWAL VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI I.C. SUDHIR JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1833/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10) SAMAY SINGH VS. ITO S/0 SH. AMI LAL WARD-2 INCOME TAX OFFICE GALI NO. 1 MAHAVIR NAGAR GANDHI CHOWK MODEL T OWN KALKA ROAD REWARI REWARI ACGPS7301G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIVEK AGGARWAL REVENUE BY : MS Y. S. KAK KAR SR. DR ORDER PER I. C. SUDHIR JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED FIRST APP ELLATE ORDER ON SEVERAL GROUNDS. 2. AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING THE LD. AR FAIRLY CONCE DED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY REPRESENTED BEFORE T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE TH E FACTS OF THE CASE WHILE MAKING ADDITION OF RS.2 60 000/- IN QUESTION AND IN NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 54 F OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER THREE COUSIN BROTHERS HAD SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURIN G 16 CANALS 7 MARLAS ON ITA NO.1833.DEL.13 2 1/7/2008 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.60 48 000/- OF W HICH ASSESSEES SHARE WAS RS.16 46 092/-. THE SAID LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE GRAND FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELATES TO HUF FOR WHICH THE AO ASKED THE ASSES SEE TO FILE COPY OF PURCHASED DEED TO VERITY THE STATUS OF LAND. THE P ROCEEDS OF SALE OF THE SAID LAND WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH HDFC BANK AND THE SAME WAS UTILIZED TO PURCHASE A PLOT IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEES WIFE. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH IS ALLOW ABLE AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. THE LAND SOLD WAS INHERITE D BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS FATHER AND IT WAS TRANSFERRED IN THE REVENUE RECORD IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. MERELY BECAUSE THE SALE PROCE EDS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE INDIVIDUAL BANK ACCOUNT IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS BEL ONGING TO THE ASSESSEE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT NO APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46 A WAS FILED IGNORING THIS FACT THAT IN ITS REMAND REPORT THE AO HAD NOT DISP UTED THE DEMISE OF THE FATHER OF THE ASSESEEE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT AS PER THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS INHERI TED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS FATHER AND IT WAS TRANSFERRED IN THE REVENUE RECORD S IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY WHICH FACT HAS BEEN IGNORED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE A.O IGNORING THIS MATERIAL ITA NO.1833.DEL.13 3 FACT THAT ONUS TO PROVE THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND UNDE R CONSIDERATION BELONGS TO HUF WAS DULY DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. A R ALSO REFERRED THE CASH BOOK OF THE PERIOD 1/4/2008 TO 31/3/2009 OF THE ASS ESSEE STATEMENT OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD 1/4/2008 TO 31/3/2009 SALE DEED DATED 1/7/2008 VIDE WHICH THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SOLD SALE DEED DATE D 18/11/2008 WHEREBY A PLOT OF LAND HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE N AME OF HIS WIFE AND THE JAMABANDI. COPIES OF THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PLA CED ON RECORD ALONG WITH THE APPEAL. A COPY OF REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALSO BEEN MADE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND OPPOSED THE APPEAL. SHE POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS ERROR IN THE COMPUTATION OF SHARE OF THE A SSESSEE WORKED OUT AT RS. 16 046 92/- WHEREAS THERE WERE FOUR SHARE HOLDERS INCLUDING ASSESSEE IN THE LAND SOLD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.60 48 000/-. S HE SUBMITTED FURTHER THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DISCHARGE HIS ONUS TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) F ILED WITHOUT APPLICATION WITH SUCH REQUEST UNDER RULE 46A THAT OO WITHOUT AS SIGNING A REASON FOR NOT FILING THESE DOCUMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED. SHE POINTED OUT FURTHER THAT NO SPECIFIC GROUNDS FITTING INTO THE GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE RAISED BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A). IN SUPPORT SHE REFERRED DIFFERENT PARAGRAPHS OF THE FIRST APPELLAT E ORDER. ITA NO.1833.DEL.13 4 4. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSION S PECIALLY KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A TEACHER AND FULLY AGREEING WITH THE S UBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL MADE AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY REPRESENTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND TO MEET THE END OF JUSTICE AND FOR MAKING A JU ST ASSESSMENT SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSMENT OF THE TAXABLE INCOME IF ANY AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING MATERIALS ALREADY AVAILAB LE ON THE RECORD. THE GROUNDS AS WELL AS APPEAL ARE THUS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 10/10/2013. SD/- SD/ - (G.D.AGRAWAL) (I.C. SUDHIR) (VICE PRESIDENT) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) DATED THE 10 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013 R. NAHEED COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. CIT(ITAT) NEW DELHI. AR ITAT NEW DE LHI.