Satya Pal Jindal, New Delhi v. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 616/DEL/2010 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 61620114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAGPJ2783B
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 616/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant Satya Pal Jindal, New Delhi
Respondent ACIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 07-04-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 09-02-2010
Judgment Text
ITA NO. 616/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2003-04 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 616/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2003-04 SATYA PAL JINDAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX 507 5 TH FLOOR AGGARWAL MILLINIUM CIRCLE 19(1) TOWER NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE AAYAKAR BHAVAN 1 ST FLOOR HALL NO. 3 PITAMPURA DISTT. CENTRE LAXMI NAGAR NEW DELHI 110 034 DELHI 110 092 (PAN: AAGPJ 2783 B) [APPELLANT] (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MADHU MOHAN CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. P.K. PRUSTY SR. DR ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 16.11.2 009 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 81 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND AS THE SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE IS RS. 20 000/- AND NOT RS. 1 00 000/- AS CONSIDERED BY THE LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ITA NO. 616/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2003-04 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE HAS CLAIMED A LOSS OF RS. 3600/- ON THE SALE OF LAND. ON EXAMINATION ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PLOT OF LAND FOR A SUM OF RS. 1 00 000/- ON 24.6.2 002 AND THE PLOT WAS PURCHASED AT A PRICE OF RS. 22600/- INCLUDING STAMP DUTY CHA RGES ON 30.5.2002. TOTAL GAIN ON THIS PLOT OF LAND THUS CAME TO RS. 77400/-. SIN CE THE LAND WAS SOLD WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS THE GAIN WAS TREATED AS SHO RT-TERM CAPITAL ACCOUNT. 4. BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT HAS NOT GONE THROUGH THE PAPER OF THE SALE DEED OF THE PLOT PROPERLY. IT WAS CLAIM ED THAT THE PLOT WAS SOLD AT RS. 1 00 000/- BUT THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS O NLY 20%. HENCE THE SALE CONSIDERATION RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 20 000/- AND NOT RS. 1 00 000/-. HOWEVER THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ASSESS ING OFFICER S ACTION. 5. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 6. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CLAIM OF LAND NOT BELONGING TO ASSESSEE ALONE AND THAT ASSESSEES SHARE WAS ONLY 2 0%. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT IN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL PLACED BEFORE US IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT SHRI SATYA PAL JINDA L THE ASSESEE WAS OWNER OF THE LAND MEASURING 4 BISWAS AND VIMAL KUMAR JINDAL WAS THE OWNER OF LAND MEASURING 16 BISWAS. HENCE WE FIND COGENCY IN TH E ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED ONLY 20% OF THE SALE PROCEE DS. ACCORDINGLY WE ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS ATTRIB UTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 20 000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO MA KE THE COMPUTATION ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 616/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2003-04 3 7. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1 70 000/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. 8. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AGRICULTUR AL INCOME OF RS. 1 70 000/-. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER EVIDENCE REGARDING AGRICU LTURAL INCOME THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ADDED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. 9. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 10. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSELS AND PERUSED TH E RECORDS. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN COMPLETE DETAILS OF ASSESSEES LAND HOLDINGS AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 11.1 LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IN THE LAND IS ONLY 20% HIS SHARE OF AGRICULTURAL PROCEEDS SHOULD ALSO BE ONLY 20%. 11.2 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE WE FIN D OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE THAT ONLY 20% OF THE AGRICULTURAL PROCEEDS I.E. RS. 34 000/- SHOULD BE T AKEN AS ASSESSEES INCOME FORM AGRICULTURE AND REST HAVE TO BE TREATED AS ASSESSEE S INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 616/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2003-04 4 12. THE LAST ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE LOSS OF RS. 700/- SUFFERED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN HIS PROPRIETARY BUSINESS. 12.1 ON THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THA T ASSESSEE IS ALSO A PROPRIETOR OF M/S JINDAL BHATTA COMPAY IN WHICH NO BUSINESS A CTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT DURING THE YEAR. HENCE THE LOSS OF RS. 700/- DECLARED I N PROPRIETARY CONCERN WAS DISALLOWED. 12.2 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 700/- WAS AMOUNT O F BANK CHARGES CHARGED BY THE BANK ON THE CURRENT ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE FIRM. THESE WERE CHARGES WHICH HAVE TO BE PAID TO MAINTAIN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE BANK OF THE CONCERN. HOWEVER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) D ID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION. 12.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSELS AND PERUSED TH E RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERABLE COGENCY . THE AMOUNT WAS INCURRED ON BANK CHARGES WHICH WAS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN T HE CURRENT ACCOUNT OF THE CONCERN. ACCORDINGLY WE DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE SAID LOSS OF RS. 700/- SHOULD BE ALLOWED. ITA NO. 616/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2003-04 5 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/04/201 0. SD/- SD/- [C.L. SETHI] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 07/04/2010 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES