SHREE ROHITASH,ALIGARH vs. ITO, ALWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 257/JPR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 April 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the AO, restoring the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO within 60 days.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an agriculturist, received compensation for the compulsory acquisition of his agricultural land. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this compensation as long-term capital gain and passed an ex-parte order without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment order was passed without providing natural justice to the assessee, and if the compensation for agricultural land acquired by the government is eligible for exemption under Section 10(37).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 10(37),Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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. 257/JP/2017

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Ranka (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 04/04/2019Pronounced: 05/04/2019

ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A), Alwar dated 01/02/2017 for the A.Y. 2012-13 in the matter of ex parte order passed U/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).

2.

In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved for the addition made under the head long term capital gain in respect of land compulsory

1.

2 ITA 257/JP/2017_ Shree Rohitash Vs ITO acquired by the government and eligible for exemption U/s 10(37) of the Act.

3.

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The facts in brief are that the assessee Mr. Rohitash, S/o- Runia Ram is an agriculturist and doing the farming in his village Kamalpur, Tehsil- Tapukara (Raj) since long time. The agricultural land which is in question was acquired by RIICO under compulsory acquisition and assessee received compensation of Rs. 60,65,695.00 in the year under reference. The said agricultural land is alleged to be at a distance of more than 9 KM from the municipality limit therefore, this agricultural land is not covered under the definition of capital assets as per Income Tax Act. However. the A.O. has framed the assessment by passing ex parte order taken this compensation as long-term capital gain and charged tax @ 20% as well as interest thereof. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the A.O., against which the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT.

4.

It was argued by the ld AR of the assessee that before passing the assessment order in the interest of natural justice, opportunity was not provided to the assessee, otherwise the facts and documents could have been produced before the A.O. then and there itself and litigation

3 ITA 257/JP/2017_ Shree Rohitash Vs ITO could have been avoided. Our attention was invited to the detailed affidavit filed by the assessee to the effect that no opportunity was given to the assessee. Our attention was also invited to the order passed by the Tribunal in order dated 03/05/2017 wherein under similar facts and circumstances, the matter was restored back to the file of the A.O. The ld AR has further drawn our attention to the order passed by the A.O. giving effect to the above order of the Tribunal wherein the A.O. vide order dated 18/12/2018 has allowed assessee’s claim.

5.

On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below.

6.

We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. We had also gone through the affidavit so filed by the assessee. From the record we found that the assessee is having ancestral land and doing farming in his village Kamalpur. The assessee’s agricultural land was acquired by the RIICO for which compensation was paid. However, without giving opportunity to the assessee and considering the factual details with regard to distance of the agricultural land from municipal limits, the A.O. has made the addition by passing ex parte order. The assessee has also not 4 ITA 257/JP/2017_ Shree Rohitash Vs ITO received any assessment notices U/s 143(2), 142(1) of the Act issued by the A.O. of ward Bhiwadi, Alwar (Rajasthan). The assessee had also filed an affidavit to this effect. In the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the ex parte order of the A.O. and matter is restored back to his file for deciding afresh. The assessee is directed to appear before the A.O. within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. We order accordingly.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in the open court on 05th 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:- 05th April, 2019 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shree Rohitash, Alwar. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The I.T.O., Ward-Bhiwadi, Alwar. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 257/JP/2017) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 10(37)

All 558 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(37) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →