SAYANNA KURMA YADALA,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NIZAMABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1139/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 November 2020AY 2006-075 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Assessing Officer re-affirmed that the assessee received Rs. 17 Lakhs from the sale of land, not Rs. 75,000/- as shown in the sale deed. Consequently, a Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 16,70,180/- was brought to tax.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2006-07 by the due date. Based on survey information, the AO believed the assessee was liable for capital gains tax and issued a notice under Section 148. The assessee eventually filed a return admitting Rs. 25,000/- income.

What were the issues?

The primary issue is whether the assessee received Rs. 17 Lakhs as sale consideration for land, as against the Rs. 75,000/- declared in the sale deed, leading to the taxation of capital gains.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI

This is assessee’s appeal for the AY.2006-07, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, Hyderabad, dated 18-03-2019.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, had not filed his return of income for the AY.2006- 07 by due date. Based on the information obtained during survey operation in the case of M/s.Laxmipriya Builders & Developers on 20-02-2008, the Assessing Officer (AO) was of the opinion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains. Therefore, a notice u/s.148 of the of the Income Tax Act [Act] was issued to the assessee, in response to which, the assessee filed his return of income for the AY.2006-07 on 22- 12-2009 admitting income of Rs.25,000/-.

3.

During the assessment proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.143(3) of the Act, the AO held that the assessee has received Rs.17 Lakhs as sale consideration on sale of 22 acres of land as against Rs.75,000/- shown in the Sale Deed by the assessee. The matter travelled upto ITAT and the ITAT set aside the order of the AO with a direction to share with the assessee the statements of all the farmers and do the assessment Denovo. In view of the same, in the remand proceedings, all the statements of farmers were provided to the assessee and the assessee was also given an opportunity to cross-examine some of the parties. Thereafter, the AO re-affirmed that the assessee has received Rs.17 Lakhs from the sale of 22 acres of land and not Rs.75,000/-, which is the value shown in the Sale Deed, as claimed by the assessee. He accordingly brought the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.16,70,180/- to tax.

4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), but the CIT(A) reproduced the assessee’s submissions at length, and held that the assessee is not able to justify why the value adopted by the Sub-Registrar should not be taken for computing the capital gain and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

5.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred this appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following Grounds:

“1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

2. The learned commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal on irrelevant considerations. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) did not decide the issue placed before her.

3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen mat the actual consideration received was not Rs.17 lakhs and was only Rs.75,000/-.

4.

The learned commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in not deciding the grounds raised

by the appellant.

5. The learned commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant did not receive Rs.17 lakhs and the same should not have been considered as the consideration received and the learned commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the actual amount received is shown in the Registered document.

6. The learned commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s.234A and 234B of the I.T.Act.

7. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”.

6.

The case is taken up for hearing on 24-11-2020 through video conferencing and both the parties were heard.

7.

Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that though the issue was whether the assessee has received Rs.17 Lakhs as sale consideration or Rs.75,000/- as mentioned in the Sale Deed, the CIT(A) has gone on a wrong assumption that the issue in the appeal is regarding the value adopted by the Sub- Registrar for computing the capital gain. Therefore, he prayed that the matter may be remitted to the file of CIT(A) for re-consideration of the issue in accordance with law.

8.

Ld.DR was also heard.

9.

Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record, I find that the CIT(A) has not dealt with the issue raised by the assessee and has given a finding, which is irrelevant for the issue before her. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to re-consider the same in accordance with law. Needless to mention that assessee shall be given a fair opportunity of hearing.

10.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24th November, 2020

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →