ITO, Bangalore v. Smt. K. Leelavathy, Bangalore

ITA 997/BANG/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 99721114 RSA 2010
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 997/BANG/2010
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Bangalore
Respondent Smt. K. Leelavathy, Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-02-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 28-02-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 17-08-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.997(BANG)/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) AND ITA NO.998(BANG)/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4) BANGALORE. APPELLANT VS. 1. SMT. K.LEELAVATHY 65 VANI VILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE. 2. SHRI T.RAGHAVENDRA GOWDA 65 VANI VILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE. RESPONDENTS APPELLANT BY: SMT.AMRITA RANJAN. RESPONDENTS BY : SHRI S.RANGANATH. O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI JM : THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-II BANGALORE DATED 15-3-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVEMENT IONED TWO ASSESSEES. 2. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) IN DIRECTING TO LEVY LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS CLAIME D BY THE ITA NOS.997 & 998(BANG)/2010 PAGE 2 OF 3 ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN T HE CASE OF T.SURESH GOWDA IN ITA NO.262/BANG/2009 DATED 30-12- 2009. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE REVENUE H AS NOT ACCEPTED THE SAID DECISION OF THE ITAT AND FURTHER APPEAL U/S 260A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFER RED TO AS 'THE ACT'] HAS BEEN PREFERRED BEFORE THE HONBLE HI GH COURT OF KARNATAKA. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO FILED THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME DECLA RING AGRICULTURAL INCOME ALSO. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD CERTAIN LAND WHICH WAS NON-AGRICULTURAL BU T HAS NOT DECLARED ANY INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. ACCORDINGLY HE BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX UNDER THE H EAD CAPITAL GAINS. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEES PREFERRED APPEALS BEFOR E THE CIT(A) WHO FOUND THAT THE SAID LAND WAS INITIALLY C ONVERTED FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND TO NON-AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL P URPOSE BY THE ORIGINAL OWNERS OF THE LAND BUT THE LAND SO CONVERT ED WAS REQUIRED TO BE PUT TO USE FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PURP OSE WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CONVERSION ORDER. BUT I T WAS NOT SO PUT TO USE AND THEREFORE THE ORDER WAS TO BE TREAT ED AS NULL AND VOID AUTOMATICALLY. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT I N SIMILAR CASE OF T.SURESH GOWDA THE ITAT HAS HELD THAT IT IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ONLY CERTAIN PORTION OF THE SALE CONSIDERA TION IS EXIGIBLE TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX. FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER OF THE ITA NOS.997 & 998(BANG)/2010 PAGE 3 OF 3 ITAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. AS SEEN FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ITSELF THE RE VENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN FOLLOWIN G THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF T.SURESH GOWDA AS THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AN APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. AS THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE O F ADJOINING LAND HOLDER WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME AS LONG AS THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT B EEN SUSPENDED OR STAYED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KA RNATAKA. IN VIEW OF THE SAME THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEBRUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE PRESIDENT (SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER EKS COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT 5. DR ITAT BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT BANGALORE