Mohd. Rafi, Haldwani v. ITO, Ward-1(2), Haldwani

ITA 5965/DEL/2018 | 2014-2015
Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 596526014 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN ASKPM2167N
Bench Dehradun
Appeal Number ITA 5965/DEL/2018
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant Mohd. Rafi, Haldwani
Respondent ITO, Ward-1(2), Haldwani
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 12-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 12-03-2021
Assessment Year 2014-2015
Appeal Filed On 17-09-2018
Judgment Text
1 ITA NO. 5965/DEL/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE JUDICIAL ME MBER AND DR. B. R. R. KUMAR ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5965/DDN/ 2018 ( A.Y 2014-15) (THROUGH VIDEO C ONFERENCING) MOHD. RAFI RAJA COMPLEX WARD NO. 4 TEHSIL ROAD KALADHUNGI NAINITAL UTTARAKHAND ASKPM2167N (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-1(2) HALDWANI UTTARAKHAND (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. S. K. CHATURVEDI CA RESPONDENT BY SH. N. C. UPADHYAYA SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 12/06/2018 PASSED BY CIT(A)-HALDWANI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014- 15. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS W ELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. THAT CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY CONFI RMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1341000/- U/S 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 THE DIFFERENCE OF STAMP VALUE AND ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF AGRICU LTURE LAND WHICH WAS OUT OF PURVIEW OF CAPITAL ASSET AS DEFINED U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT THIS ACTION IS ILLEGAL DATE OF HEARING 19.02.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.03.2021 2 ITA NO. 5965/DEL/2018 AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . 3. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY NOT CONSIDERING THE L EGAL ISSUE WHILE CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN INVOKING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 147 I.E. THE SATISFACTION WAS FOR ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME TO THE TU NE OF RS. 3535500/- CONSISTING THE AMOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCES OF INV ESTMENT AT RS. 2192500/- AND THE DIFFERENCE OF STAMP VALUE OF AGRICULTURE LA ND AND ACTUAL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 1341000/- AS AGAINST THE SAME THE ADDITION WAS ILLEGALLY MADE FOR THE LATER ONLY THIS ACTION IS I LLEGAL ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE SETTLED LAW. 3. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUAT ED OUTSIDE THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF NAGAR PANCHAYAT KALADUNGI. THE VALUE AS PER STAMP VALUATION OF THE LAND IS RS. 33 41 000/- AND SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS. 20 LACS. THE ASSESSEE E-FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 14-15 ON 9/9/2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2 46 815/-. IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF LAND THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED A QUERY FOR WHICH THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF HIS OWN SAVINGS AND FURN ISHED THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THE ASSESSING O FFICER ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 15 87 815/- THEREBY MAKING ADDITION O F RS. 13 41 000/- BEING DIFFERENCE OF VALUE AS PER CIRCLE RATE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) TOTALLY IGN ORED THE FACT THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF STAMP VALUE AND ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERA TION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS OUT OF PUR VIEW OF CAPITAL ASSET AS DEFINED SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. HENCE THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 4. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 3 ITA NO. 5965/DEL/2018 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE PURCHASE OF LAND AND THE REGISTRATION FEES/STAMP DUTY WAS NEVER QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND THERE WAS NO EFFORT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR TAKING THE COGNIZANCE OF THE DVO REPORT. THE CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO DO SO AND MERELY ON THE ASSUMPTION BASIS THE REVENUE HAS MADE THE ADDITION WHICH IS UNJUST AND N OT PROPER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2) (VII) (B) OF THE ACT. HENCE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. IN RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12TH DA Y OF MARCH 2021 SD/- SD/- (B. R. R. KUMAR) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER DATED: 12 /03/2021 R. NAHEED COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 4 ITA NO. 5965/DEL/2018