ITO, 2(2) , INDORE vs. SMT. RITA BAI MAURYA , INDORE

आदेश / O R D E R

PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: These two appeals by the revenue are pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13 against two different assessees.

First we take up the ITA No.290/Ind/2018. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeals:

1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the total addition of Rs.1,81,83,477/- which was made by the A.O.

2. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.87,15,960/- without giving any finding/enquiry that land is situated beyond 8 k.m. from municipal limits and holding that it is not capital asset. 3. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.61,34,230/-, Rs.31,69,000/- & Rs.1,38,125/- without giving any finding regarding eligibility of assessee for deduction u/s 54B of the I.T. Act, 1961 and source of funds. 4. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,81,83,477/- in lump sum without individually discussing various grounds raised by assessee.

[ITA Nos.290&291/Ind/2018] [Smt. Shiv Kumari Maurya & Smt. Rita Bai Maurya, Indore] 2. The facts in brief are that the case of the assessee was reopened and the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) was framed vide order dated 27.12.2016. The A.O. observed that the assessee had sold a land to M/s. Gold City Developers for a sale consideration of Rs.1,02,24,000/-.

Further, the stamp value of the same property was Rs.1,89,39,960/-. The A.O. therefore invoking provisions of section 50C of the Act added the difference amount of Rs.87,15,960/-. Further, the A.O. observed that the assessee had sold diverted urban land to development for developing a colony and claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act. The A.O. rejected the claim of deduction and made addition of Rs.61,34,230/-. Further, the A.O. observed that the payments were made through cash. However, the assessee has not disclosed this cash component, thus made addition of Rs.31,69,000/-.

[ITA Nos.290&291/Ind/2018] [Smt. Shiv Kumari Maurya & Smt. Rita Bai Maurya, Indore] 3. Aggrieved by this order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The A.O. also made addition of Rs.1,38,125/- by disallowing the claim of the assessee in respect of purchase consideration of the agricultural land.

Against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions allowed the appeal.

4. It is noticed that on the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the service of notice. Again a notice of hearing was sent which is received back unserved with a remark from the postal authority “does not reside here”. Hence, the appeal was taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee. At the outset, Ld. CIT(DR) pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal without giving opportunity to the A.O. Ld. D.R. submitted that no remand report was called by the Ld. CIT(A) from the A.O. Ld. D.R. at the outset submitted that 4

[ITA Nos.290&291/Ind/2018] [Smt. Shiv Kumari Maurya & Smt. Rita Bai Maurya, Indore] the impugned order is non-speaking and cryptic. The finding of the A.O. is not adverted in detail.

3.1.4 At the time of original assessment the Assessing Officer had held that the appellant had sold diverted land to M/s. Gold City Developers. A forensic report has been submitted which states that the thumb impression as on the diversion deed does not tally with the thumb impression of the appellant. M/s. Gold City Developers has fraudulently diverted the said agricultural land by forging the signature of the appellant. The appellant has filed a complaint against Shri Mahaveer Jain, partner of M/s. Gold City Developers. The newspaper report cuttings have also been placed on record which shows that Shri Mahaveer Jain has defrauded the public. Thus, from the remand report of the Assessing Officer it is clear that the appellant has sold agricultural land. This view is also been upheld by the CIT(A)-III, Indore while deciding the appeal of the following for A.Y. 2011-12 where the substantive addition had been made. The CIT(A)-III, Indore decided the appeal in favour of the appellant vide Appeal No.IT-1237/2015-16 dated 29.9.2017. 3.1.5 In view of the above, as the appellant has sold agricultural land which is exempt from Long Term Capital Gain tax the additions of Rs.1,81,57,320/- made by the Assessing Officer cannot be upheld. Therefore, the addition made by the A.O. amounting to Rs.1,81,57,320/- is Deleted. Therefore, the appeal on these grounds is Allowed.

Order was pronounced in the open court on 24 .07.2019.