JAI SINGH SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1462/JP/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16
Jai Singh Sethia
284 Frontier Colony, Adarsh
Nagar Behind, Bhagat Singh
Park, Jaipur cuke
Vs.
DCIT/ACIT,
Circle-02,
Jaipur
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACHPS5306A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Dheeraj Borad, CA, Ld. AR jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing
: 27/02/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 06/03/2025
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Assessee-appellant has challenged order dated 23.10.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act (for short ‘Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Before Ld. CIT (A), the assessee challenged assessment order dated
26.09.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Vide impugned assessment,
2
Jai Singh Sethia vs. DCIT/ACIT
By making addition of Rs. 63,66,234/- while disallowing deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, and another addition of Rs. 2,94,843/- on account of interest on re-fund of the equal amount, the Assessing Officer assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,14,93,310/- by recomputing his income as under:-
“6. With the above remarks, the income of the assessee is re-computed as under:-
Income from Salary as declared
Rs. 27, 00,000/-
Income from House Property as declared
Rs. 9, 99,052/-
Income from capital gain as declared as declared
Rs. 1, 15, 36,383/-
Add: Deduction u/s 54F as withdrawn as per
Rs. 63, 66,234/-
Para 4 above
Income from other sources as declared
Rs. 2, 53,207/-
Add: Addition as per para 5 above
Rs. 2, 94,843/-
Total
Rs. 2, 16, 43,305/-
Less: Deduction under chapter –VI as claimed
Rs. 1, 50,000/-
Total assessed income
Rs. 2, 14, 93,310/-
R/o to Rs. 2, 14, 93,310/-
Ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal and sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. That is how; the assessee is before this Appellate Tribunal. 4. Arguments heard. File perused
3
Jai Singh Sethia vs. DCIT/ACIT
Admittedly, for the Assessment Year 2015-16, assessee declared in return of income his income at Rs. 1,48,32,230/-. The case of the assessee was selected on for scrutiny thereupon notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and questionnaire were issued on 19.09.2016 and 16.01.2017 respectively. In compliance to the notices, the assessee furnished requisite details. 6. In the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that on 15.05.2014 i.e. during the year under consideration, the assessee had sold house property situate at B-94, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur for a sale consideration of Rs. 2 Crores. In this regard, he had claimed exemptions on account of cost of acquisition of Rs. 79, 20,684/- and of Rs. 13,620/- on account of improvement after indexation. In this way, assessee had claimed exemptions of Rs. 63,66,234/- u/s. 54F of the Act and declared long term capital gain of Rs. 55,81,462/-. 7. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee was not entitled to claim exemptions u/s. 54F of the Act, the assessee having sold a residential Unit.
4
Jai Singh Sethia vs. DCIT/ACIT
Therefore, Assessing Officer issued a notice to the assessee to explain in this regard. Assessee furnished reply to the notice. In para 4.1 of the assessment order, relevant portion of the reply reads as under:-
“That the above land and building was given on rent to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur which runs its branch at the above mentioned premises i.e. B-94, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. A copy of registered lease deed i.e. Rent deed dated 21.4.2009 executed by State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur in favour of assessee Jai Singh
Sethia is enclosed. This lease deed itself clearly suggest that the property at B-94, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur commercial in Nature. The assessee is regularly filing his return of income from last more than 40 years and is regularly showing income from rent from this property rented to SBBJ as per the enclosed rent deed. Until sale of the property in the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 it was given on Rent to SBBJ and branch of SBBJ is being run in these premises.”
8. After considering the above said response, Assessing Officer found that the same was not acceptable due to the reason that the subject property was got registered with the