LATE SMT GOWRAMMA BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SRI V KRISHNAMURTHY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2113/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 November 2018AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) due to procedural defects, specifically the order being passed after the assessee's death without adequate opportunity for the legal representative to be heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption for compensation received for acquiring urban agricultural land for a Metro Train project. The CIT(A) disallowed the claim, stating the land was within 8 km of an urban area and had a building, thus not qualifying for exemption under the RFCTLAAR Act. The assessee's representative pointed out procedural errors in the CIT(A)'s order, including the date of hearing and the fact that the order was passed after the assessee's death without proper representation.

What were the issues?

Whether the compensation received for compulsory acquisition of urban agricultural land is exempt under Section 10(37) of the IT Act. Whether the CIT(A)'s order was procedurally valid, particularly concerning the representation of the deceased assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(37)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA & SHRI LALIET KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Gowthama, CA
For Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 12.11.2018Pronounced: 16.11.2018

Late Smt. Gowramma by Legal Representative Sri V. Krishnamurthy, The Income Tax Officer, No. 22, 1st Main Road, vs. Ward – 5 (2) (4), 2nd Cross, Deepanjalinagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 026. PAN: BFSPG4228N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H.V. Gowthama, CA Respondent by : Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 12.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 16.11.2018 O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-5, Bangalore dated 17.09.2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

The grounds raised

by the assessee are as under. “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirming the order of the learned Income Tax Officer, who had disallowed the claim of the Appellant towards exemption u/s.10(37) being compensation received for acquiring an urban agricultural land for the purpose of Metro Train.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax was wrong in not appreciating the fact that as per provisions of section 10(37), any compensation received would be exempt under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as `RFCTLAAR Act').

3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have appreciated the fact that as per the Circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes vide its Circular No.36/2016 dated 25.10.2016, any compensation received by any Appellant for compulsory acquisition of urban agricultural land would be exempt.

4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in Page 2 of 3 stating that since the land situated within 8 Kms. Of urban area cannot be considered as agricultural and further there was also a building on the said land, hence the appellant is not enlisted for exemption under RFCTLAAR Act.

5. For the above and any other grounds that may be advanced at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the Appeal be allowed.”

3.

At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that there were some apparent mistakes in the order passed by CIT (A) and he pointed out that in the said order, the date of order is stated to be 11.05.2018 and the date of hearing was stated to be 09.05.2016. Thereafter, he submitted that the assessee moved an application for rectification u/s. 154 before ld. CIT (A) and thereafter, the CIT (A) has passed an order u/s. 154 of IT Act, copy of which is already submitted before the Tribunal. He pointed out that as per this order of CIT(A) u/s. 154, it has been stated by ld. CIT(A) that date of hearing should be read as 09.05.2018 in place of 09.05.2016. He also submitted that this is also stated by CIT (A) in Para 2(2) of this order passed by him u/s. 154 that the order of ld. CIT (A) has been passed after the death of the assessee Smt. Gowramma and therefore, name of the legal representative of Smt. Gowramma i.e. her son Sri V. Krishna Murthy’s name has been brought on record in place of Smt. Gowramma. At this juncture, the bench wanted to know regarding the date of the death of the assessee and in reply, the ld. AR of assessee submitted copy of death certificate dated 07.05.2018 as per which the assessee has expired on 07.05.2018. The bench also wanted to know as to whether on the last date of hearing as per the order passed by CIT(A) u/s. 154 i.e. 09.05.2018, any opportunity of hearing was provided to the legal representative of the assessee i.e. her son Shri V. Krishna Murthy and in reply, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that no such opportunity was provided to the legal representative of the assessee and Shri Gowthama, CA who was present before CIT(A) was AR of assessee and not her legal representative. Under these facts, the bench observed that the order of CIT (A) has to be set aside and the matter has to be restored back to his file for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to legal representative of the assessee and also after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the AO. In reply, both sides agreed to this proposition put forward by the bench.

4.

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order of CIT (A) is set aside and the matter is restored back to his file for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides i.e. the AO and the legal representative of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) is also directed to obtain a report from the AO in respect of legal representative of the assessee also as to whether he is the only legal representative of assessee or there is somebody else also who is also required to be brought on record as legal representative of the assessee. In view of this decision, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

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 →