Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1031/JP/2016
ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. These are the appeal and cross appeal filed by the assessee and revenue against the order of ld.CIT(A)-III, Jaipur dated 26/09/2016 for the A.Y. 2012-13 in the matter order passed U/s 143(3) of the Income
2 ITA 1031 & 1048/JP/2016_ Smt. Darshana Jagdish Malli Vs ACIT Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Following grounds have been taken by the assessee: “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred by not considering the payment of brokerage amounting Rs. 21,917/- in spite of submitting name and address of the recipient to the assessing authority.
2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred by not considering the tube well expenses amounting Rs. 65,000/- and indexed value Rs. 1,31,170/- in spite of submitting name/address/bill and confirmation of the recipient to the assessing authority.
3. The assessee craves the right to add, reduce, amend and withdraw of all or any grounds of appeal.”
2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee has offered long term capital gains with respect to the agricultural land sold. The assessee has claimed the brokerage of Rs. 21,917/- and also well expenses of Rs. 65,000/- in which indexed cost of Rs. 1,31,170/- was claimed. The assessee also claimed deduction U/s 54EC of the Act. However, the A.O. declined all the claims of assessee. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the A.O. with regard to expenses on brokerage and well, however, he allowed colaim of deduction U/s 54EC of the Act. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), both assessee and the revenue are in further appeals before the ITAT.
3 ITA 1031 & 1048/JP/2016_ Smt. Darshana Jagdish Malli Vs ACIT 3. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record that during the year under consideration the assessee has shown income from long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 35,63,252/- and income from other sources amounting to Rs. 7,95,102/- aggregating to Rs. 43,58,354/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished relevant details and evidences in support of income declared in the return of income. On perusal of details filed by the assessee, it is noticed that the assessee has claimed brokerage on purchase of agriculture land amounting to Rs. 21,917/-. Further the assessee has claimed tube well expenses of Rs. 1,31,170/- in computation of income for the year under consideration. With regard to claim of brokerage expenses, we found that the brokerage was paid to Shri Om Prakash of Surat amounting to Rs. 9,800/-. It was explained that since the assessee was living in Dubai, to have a better deal, the assessee has paid brokerage to Shri Om Prakash. Accordingly, out of the assessee’s claim of brokerage of Rs. 21,917/-, we direct to allow brokerage of Rs. 9,800/- paid to Shri Om Prakash. Balance amount of Rs. 12,117/- is confirmed.
With regard to expenditure on well incurred by the assessee in the year 1999-2000, we found that the assessee had submitted confirmation letter of M/s Kaladera Bore Well, who fitted the bore well. The 4 ITA 1031 & 1048/JP/2016_ Smt. Darshana Jagdish Malli Vs ACIT confirmation letter so filed mentioned name, address everything with regard to digging of bore well. We had verified the bill No. 81 dated 25/04/1999 issued by Kaladera Borewell, 1881, Kaladera, Tehsil-Chomu, Jaipur (Raj.) as placed on record. Accordingly, there is no justification for disallowing the claim of borewell expenses of Rs. 65,000/-, indexed cost amounting to Rs. 1,31,170/- by the A.O. Accordingly, the A.O. is directed to allow borewell expenses incurred by the assessee while computing the long term capital gains. We direct accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part.
With respect to the revenue’s appeal, we found that in course of assessment, the A.O. has declined the assessee’s claim of deduction U/s 54EC of the Act amounting to Rs. 50.00 lacs which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) after having a detailed finding at para 6.3 of its appellate order, against which the revenue is in further appeal before the ITAT.
We found that the tax effect in the revenue’s appeal is less than Rs. 20 lacs, therefore, in view of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 (F No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ(Pt) instructing the authorities below that departmental appeal should not be filed before ITAT where the demand/tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lacs. Since the tax demand in dispute in this departmental appeal
5 ITA 1031 & 1048/JP/2016_ Smt. Darshana Jagdish Malli Vs ACIT is below the limit set out by CBDT for the appeal, the appeal of the revenue is not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018. Accordingly, the appeal of the Department is dismissed as not pressed/withdrawn.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th April, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼jes'k lh 'kekZ½ (VIJAY PAL RAO) (RAMESH C SHARMA) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 30th April, 2019 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Darshana Jagdish Malli, Churu. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The A.C.I.T., Jhunjhunu. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण]जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1031 & 1048/JP/2016) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत