SHRI AKHILESH JOSHI,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2, DEWAS, DEWAS
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly adjudicated the facts and had failed to consider various submissions and documents filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside all issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deductions under sections 54B and 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and challenged additions made to their income based on Section 50C(3). The assessee contended that the lower authorities failed to properly consider various documents and submissions, including the nature of the property as HUF property and the applicability of Section 50C to the specific land.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower authorities properly considered the assessee's claims for deductions under Sections 54B and 54F and the applicability of Section 50C(3) to the facts of the case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 54B,Section 54F,Section 50C(3),Section 143(3),Section 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD
PER MANISH BORAD, AM.
These two appeals filed at the instance of two assessee’s namely
Late Smt. Kamla Bai ITA No.578/Ind/2017 pertaining to A.Y. 1
Kamla Bai & Akhilesh Joshi ITA No.578 to 579/Ind/2017 2010-11 in the case of Shri Akhilesh Joshi ITA No.579/Ind/2017
pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11 are directed against the
order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (in short ‘CIT(A)’),
Ujjain 29.05.2017 and 16.05.2017 which are arising out of the
order u/s 143(3)/148 of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’)
dated 16.12.2016 and 17.12.2016 respectively framed by ITO-2,
Dewas.
As the issues raised in all these appeals are mostly common
they were heard together and have been disposed off by this
common order for sake of convenience and brevity.
At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee commonly stated for
both the appeals that, Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the facts
properly. Various documents were filed before the lower authorities
including those pertaining to deduction claimed u/s 54B & 54F of
the Act, which have not been considered. In light of these facts
Ld.Counsel for the assessee requested for setting aside all the
issues raised in both these appeals to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer (In short Ld.A.O) for denovo adjudication.
Kamla Bai & Akhilesh Joshi ITA No.578 to 579/Ind/2017 4. Ld. Departmental Representative though supported the orders
of lower authorities but did not oppose to the request of Ld.Counsel
for the assessee for setting aside all the issues raised in these two appeals to the file of Ld.A.O for denovo adjudication.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the records
placed before us. In both these appeals relating with Smt. Kamla
Bai and Shri Akhilesh Joshi multiple grounds have been raised
apart from challenging the reopening of the assessment. Grounds
have been raised against the addition for Long Term Capital Gain at
Rs.59,48,470/-. in the hands of both the assessee’s made on
account of invoking of the provisions of section 50C(3) of the Act,
adopting the value assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authority
which is higher than the sale consideration received by the
assessee’s. Grounds have also been raised for not allowing
deduction u/s 54B and 54F of the Act. Revenue has not
controverted the fact that Ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with the issue for
giving deduction u/s 54B and 54F of the Act even when the
assessee has filed necessary documents. Various submissions of
the assessee have also not been considered which relates to the
Kamla Bai & Akhilesh Joshi ITA No.578 to 579/Ind/2017 ownership of the property which is contended to be that of Hindu
Undivided Family (HUF) property being ancestral in nature and
additions wrongly made for 1/3 of the long term capital gain even
when the property was inherited by 6 persons. Issue has also been
raised for the benefit u/s 54B and 54F of the Act which were not
entertained even when the assessee was carrying on agriculture
operation on the alleged land sold during the year. Assessee’s
challenge for reviewing the provision of Section 50C have not been
considered even when the impugned land was situated below the high tension line situated at a hilly area with a “Nalla” going
nearby. The assessee’s request for referring the valuation to the
Stamp Valuation Officer was also not considered by the Ld.A.O.
In view of the above and in the given facts and circumstances
of the case we are of the considered view that all the issues raised
in both these appeals needs to be set aside to the file of Ld.A.O for
afresh adjudication. We accordingly order so. We also direct the
assessee to remain compliant to the notice for hearing issued by the
Ld.A.O and submit necessary documents and records in support of
his contentions so that proper adjudication could be done by the
Kamla Bai & Akhilesh Joshi ITA No.578 to 579/Ind/2017 Ld.A.O. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard
should be provided to the assessee.
In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for
statistical purposes.
The order pronounced in the open Court on 17.10.2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �दनांक /Dated : 17 October, 2018 /Dev Copy to: The Appellant/Respondent/CIT concerned/CIT(A) concerned/ DR, ITAT, Indore/Guard file. By order Private Secretary/DDO, Indore
More judgments on Section 54B
- Jagdishbhai Vasharambhai Italiya, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 150/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Sheela Devi, Etawah vs ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), EtawahITA 419/AGR/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Shailendra Kumar Sogani, Bhopal vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)…ITA 1076/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 640/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 639/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jai Ram Gupta vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Maa Baglamukhi Construction Thr Propriter Aryan Dhingra vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026