Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nasik dated 05-07-2018 for A.Y. 2012-13 as per the following grounds of appeal.
1. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C.LT. (A) has erred in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,25,000/- made by the learned AO by alleging the opening cash balance as on 01.04.11, as unexplained.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.LT.(A) has erred in confirming the cost of acquisition of land under question as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 50,000/- per acre, as estimated by the AO on the basis of his own surmises and conjectures. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law in referring the valuation of agricultural lands purchased by the appellant to DVO u/s 55A(b)(ii) and thereby restricting the deduction u/s 54B of the LT. Act (in respect of lands purchased from relatives) to the extent of valuation of lands as estimated by the DVO, by ignoring the amount actually invested as per registered purchase deeds which was on higher side. 4. The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal
, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted regarding ground No. 1 that the assessee is an agriculturist and so far as grievance in this ground is concerned, the entire opening balance has been added by the ld. A.O and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) for want of evidence. The ld. Counsel submitted that it should be restricted to some reasonable amount. The Bench was of the opinion that if the issue was not adjudicated substantially for want of evidences before the first appellate authority, the matter may be re-visited by the ld. CIT(A) and the issue can be remanded back to his file. On this observation of the Bench, the ld. Counsel then submitted that he would not press ground No. 1.
3. Having heard the submissions of the ld. Counsel, ground No. 1 is dismissed as not pressed.
4. In Ground No. 2, the assessee is aggrieved with the confirmation by the ld. CIT(A) regarding cost of acquisition of the land as on 01-04-1981 as held by the ld. A.O. Relevant discussion is at para 9 of the ld. A.O‟s order which is follows
9. With regard to cost of acquisition shown by the assessee at Rs. 2,62,818/- in 1981, it is not supported with any documentary evidences. Thereafter the assessee filed Govt. Valuer's (for agriculture land) Report, which is dtd. 09.12.2009, who valued the same at Rs. 2,45,000/- of the whole land. While arriving at this figure, the valuer has quoted sale transaction of Gat No. 37/1 as on 30-5-1985 at the rate 50,167/- per acre as against Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre of the year 1981 of present Gat No. 34/1, of the present assessee. Assessee's Gat No. is 341/2 and not 341/1. Thus, report does not match even his own comparable sale transaction quoted by the valuer which is of 30.05.1985. How the assessee himself has arrived at the cost of acquisition at Rs. 2,62,818/-, is also not known and as such it is also baseless, particularly when the assessee was having Valuer's Report at the time of filing of return. Valuer's Report is dtd. 09.12.2009 showing the valuation at Rs. 2,45,000/- and assessee has adopted the same at Rs. 2,62,818/-. Neither the cost of acquisition shown by the assessee at Rs. 2,62,818/- not valued by the Valuer at Rs. 2,45,000/- have any base. Both cost of acquisition are merely on estimated basis to arrive at the minirnum LTCG. Considering all the above facts, the valuation for determining the cost of acquisition in the year 1981 is taken at Rs. 50,000/- reasonably per acre which comes to Rs. 1,02,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- X 2.04 acre). Thus, the cost of acquisition of total land admeasuring 1H 66R (2.04 acre) under sale which works out to Rs. 1,02,000/- at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre. The same is taken into consideration while calculating the LTCG.
That on perusal of order of the ld. A.O we observe that the ld. A.O has adjudicated the issue based on rationality where it is found out that as on 30-05-1985 the rate per acre as to cost of acquisition was Rs. 50,167/- whereas the assessee has shown Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre in the year 1981. The assessee could not establish either before the Department or before this Bench as to how he has arrived at cost of acquisition at Rs. 2,62,818/-.
Even as per the Valuer‟s report dated 9-12-2009 valuation shown was Rs. 2,45,000/- and the assessee has taken the same at Rs. 2,62,818/-. The basis of both the valuations .0were even not explained by the assessee. We do not find any infirmity therefore with the findings of the ld. A.O as upheld by the ld. CIT(A) which is hereby confirmed. Ground No. 2 of appeal is dismissed.
In Ground No. 3, the assessee is aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the order of the ld. A.O restricting deduction u/s 54B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to the value of stamp duty and not allowing full value as per actual purchase value appearing in the purchase-deed. The relevant facts of this issue have been dealt with by the ld. A.O at para 10 of his order. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed this issue vide para 8.1 onwards.
At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel submitted in the paper book copies of purchase-deed at pages 26 to 49 in Marathi without any translated copies. The ld. D.R confirms that there is similarity of the amount mentioned in the purchase-deeds and as appearing at page 5 para 10 of the ld. A.O‟s order. We are of the considered view that section 54B of the Act does not cast any embargo for restricting the value only as per the stamp duty. The value has to be determined as per the actual purchase shown in the purchase deed. However, these facts needs detailed verification and therefore, in the interest of justice, we remand this matter to the file of the ld. A.O to re-adjudicate as per law after detailed verification regarding claim of exemption u/s 54B of the Act. This ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 23rd day of November, 2022