SHRI T.N. RAJAMOHAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner

of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Chennai in ITA No 344/CIT(A)-2/2013-14 dated

30.06.2016 for assessment year 2009-10.

:-2-: ITA No. 2540/Chny/2016

2009-10 electronically on 29.7.2009 admitting a total income of

Rs.1,67,62,236/-, comprising Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of

Rs.1,64,19,510/- and Rs.3,42,726 interest from bank. The LTCG had arisen

on account of sale of 5.23 acres of land at Vengadamangalam village,

Chengalpattu Taluk to M/s. Casa Grands Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.4,40,00,000.

AgainstRs.4,40,00,000/-, he had claimed the following:

(i) Indexed cost of acquisition of land - Rs. 6,84,804

(ii) Indexed cost of development of land - Rs.2,43,66,622

(iii) Deduction u/s 54F Rs. 25,29,064

Since the assessee did not adduce any evidence in respect of (ii) and (iii)

above at the time of the assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed them,

added Rs.2,68,95,686/- and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on

30.12.2011.Against that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A).

Before the CIT(A), the assessee made an attempt to claim that the nature of

the land which he sold is an agricultural land and hence is not liable for

taxation etc by filing certain additional evidence. The CIT(A) sought a remand

report from the A O. The AO replied , inter alia, that the assessee did not

cooperate in the remand proceedings. In his return, the assessee admitted

LTCG from the sale of the impugned land. When confronted with the

disallowance of his claimstowards deduction of Indexed Cost of development

etc at Rs. 2.43 crores etc for want of evidence, he has made a U-turn and

:-3-: ITA No. 2540/Chny/2016

claimed that the lands sold are agricultural lands before the CIT(A) and hence

this claim is clearly an after-thought. Since the assessee did not cooperate in

the remand proceedings, on examination of facts and circumstances of this

case from the available material, considering various case laws viz the

decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Sarifabibi and Court of Wards 204

ITR 631(SC) & 105 ITR 133(SC) , 136 ITR 621(Guj) , Gopal C Sharma Vs CIT

209 ITR 946 etc, the AO reported that the impugned land is not an

agricultural land, the assessee has not brought any evidence to prove the

claim of expenditure on development of land either during the assessment or

during the remand proceedings , he made a round about claim by an after-

thought with a motive of depriving the Revenue of its legitimate taxes and

hence the AO requested the CIT(A) not to entertain additional evidence etc.

The CIT(A) found that the appeal is belated by 117 days and there was no

condonation petition. Even though he dismissed the appeal in limine,

however, taking into account all the facts and circumstances , the CIT(A) ,

inter alia, held that the appellant has failed to produce any supporting

evidence to establish the actual carrying on of agricultural operations in the

said lands. In other words, as rightly pointed out by the Assessing Officer, in

his remand report, the assessee has not at all demonstrated the user of the

land for agricultural purposes, having failed to produce details of crop grown,

yield etc., despite specific opportunities granted to the assessee at the stage

of remand proceedings. Applying the ratio of the decisions of the Apex Court

:-4-: ITA No. 2540/Chny/2016

in the case of Sarifabibi and Court of Wards(supra), it is clear that the

assessee is not entitled for exemption of the Capital Gains arising from the

sale of these lands. The Assessing Officer is justified in rejecting the

assessee’s claim that the lands in question are agricultural in nature and

bringing to tax the Capital Gains arising from the sale thereof. He is also

justified in denying the claim of indexed cost of expenditure on development

of land amounting to Rs. 2.43 crores for want of supporting evidence.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed this appeal .

opportunity before dismissing the appeal on the technical ground and on

merits, the conflict between the return of income filed for the Assessment

Year under consideration and the new stand taken for complete tax

exemption for the sale of agricultural lands, is the core issues to be decided in

the present appeal. The AR pleaded that the mistake in the return in

computing the capital gains for taxation for the sale of agricultural lands

should be ignored with a view to consider independently the fresh claim for

full exemption in the light of the decision of the Madras High Court rendered

in the case of M/s Malind Laboratories P Ltd. in T.C.Appeal NO.878/2014

dated 18.11.2014. The Madras High Court has ruled 'when an appeal is an

continuation of original assessment proceedings, the Tribunal was justified in

relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Lal v. Reva Coal Field

:-5-: ITA No. 2540/Chny/2016

Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 31, wherein it is held that state authorities should not raise

technical pleas if the citizens have a lawful rights. The Tribunal has rightly

observed that the authorities under the Act are required to ensure that only

legitimate taxes due are assessed and collected '.

3.1 The AR further submitted that the Bombay Bench of the Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal in the case decided on 30.09.2015 in

I.T.A.No.4806/MUM/2012, 'F' Bench has dealt with similar issue. In the said

case, the Mumbai Bench after noticing the condonation of delay in filing the

appeal before the First Appellate Authority considered the maintainability of

the assessed Short Term Capital Gains for testing the new fresh claim for tax

exemption. In the said case, the assessee offered the surplus from the sale of

agricultural lands as Short Term Capital Gains and not claimed tax exemption

by mistake. The fresh claim was made for tax exemption before the First

Appellate Authority and the said claim was accepted based on the CBDT

Circular No.14(XL- 35) dated 11.04.1955. Considering the facts, the Mumbai

Bench dismissed the departmental appeal in accepting the approach of the

First Appellate Authority. The Jurisdictional Bench of the Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal in the case reported in 135 ITD 55 (Third Member) has

noticed the well settled principle of jurisprudence that delivery of justice

should not be fettered by technicalities and further noticed Article 265 of the

Constitution of India and according to the said article, 'taxes not to be

:-6-: ITA No. 2540/Chny/2016

imposed say by authority of law - no tax shall be levied or collected except by

authority of law'. The Jurisdictional Bench of the Income Tax Appellate

Tribunal has also noticed the CBDT circular dated 11.04.1955 and observed

'the income tax department is collecting tax not for itself. It is collecting tax

for the sovereign stage, that is, Union of India. Union of India has a sovereign

authority does not require to levy tax on an amount returned by mistake. The

sovereign authority does not want to take advantage of a mistake committed

by innocuous assessee. It is not the policy of the sovereign state to crave for

undue enrichment.' The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate

Tribunal in the case of Ideal Homes Co-operative Society decided on 7.3.2014

posed with the similar situation and the interest income eligible for tax

exemption/deduction benefit u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act and such tax

exemption/deduction was not claimed in the return of income. The assessee

supported the claim in the appellate proceedings based on the decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra Mills reported in 243 ITR 56 pleaded

for granting the said deduction with a view to arrive at the correct income for

taxation. The Bench after referring to the Supreme Court decision noticed that

the interest income was not offered for taxation while as a consequence the

claim was not made in the return of income. The Bench even in such

circumstances granted the benefit of the said deduction at the appellate stage

in terms of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Delhi High Court in the case of

Mr. Vijay Gupta decided on 20.03.2016 referred to the decision of the

:-7-: ITA No. 2540/Chny/2016

Supreme Court reported in 261 ITR 367 and the Apex Court in the said

decision has held that if the assessee has by mistake or inadvertently or on

account of ignorance included in his income any amount which is exempted

from payment of income tax or is not the income within the contemplation of

law, the assessee may bring the same to the notice of Revenue which if

satisfied may grant the assessee necessary relief and refund the tax paid in

excess if any. Further in the said decision, the Delhi High Court referred to the

decision of Bombay High Court reported in 269 ITR page 1 and in the said

Bombay High Court decision it is ruled that there cannot be any estoppel

against the statute while Article 265 of the Constitution of India in

unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by

authority of law. Further it is observed/ruled that acquiescence cannot take

away from a party the relief that he is entitled to where the tax is levied or

collected without authority of law. In the same decision, the Delhi High Court

referred to another decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 310 ITR

310 and wherein it is observed that tax can be collected only as provided

under the Act and if any assessee under a mistake, misconception or not

being properly instructed is over assessed, the Revenue under the Act is

required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected.

3.2 Therefore, the AR submitted that the claim for tax exemption for the

sale of exempted agricultural lands under consideration cannot be rejected on

technical grounds and in fact the essential documents to establish and to

:-8-: ITA No. 2540/Chny/2016

fortify the fresh claim are already available on record and examined by the

Assessing Officer in the remand report. Therefore, there is absolutely no case

for giving credence to the return of income which according to the Appellant

was filed incorporating wrong computation of Long Term Capital Gains. The

letter of confirmation from the Appellant who is residing at New Zealand is

obtained and placed on record to support the above facts. On the cumulative

consideration of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the issue

relating to the claim of tax exemption for the sale of exempted agricultural

lands may be adjudicated in favour of the Appellant and thus render justice.

In the event of the rejection of the claim for tax exemption for the sale of

exempted agricultural lands, the issue relating to reinvestment in the house

property eligible for tax exemption/deduction u/s 54F of the Act to the extent

of RS.58,72,675/- may be allowed in the interest of justice. In fact, the

remand report dated 23.12.2013, the Assessing Officer in the last page

accepted the entitlement of the tax exemption/deduction u/s 54F of the Act in

the Long Term Capital Gains computation and the first appellate authority has

not considered the said issue for appropriate direction/decision in relation

thereto.

admitted LTCG on sale of land to M/s. Casa Grands Pvt. Ltd. for

Rs.4,40,00,000.On the sale consideration, he had claimed Indexed cost of

acquisition of land , Indexed cost of development of land and Deduction u/s

:-9-: ITA No. 2540/Chny/2016

54F . During the assessment , the AO called for particulars etc to examine

those claims . Since the assessee did not adduce any evidence in respect of

these claims, the Assessing Officer disallowed them. For the first time, after

the completion of assessment, the assessee pleaded before the CIT(A) that

he is not liable to tax although he admitted certain income after claiming

certain expenditures. Further, he has neither produced any evidence or any

material either before the AO nor before the CIT(A) or before this Tribunal.

The assessee did not co operate in the remand proceedings too. On due

analysis of available material and due application of the Apex court and High

Court ratios, the AO reported to the CIT(A) that the impugned land is not an

agricultural land, the assessee has not brought any evidence to prove the

claim of expenditure on development of land either during the assessment or

during the remand proceedings , he made a round about claim by an after-

thought with a motive of depriving the Revenue of its legitimate taxes and

hence the AO requested the CIT(A) not to entertain additional evidence

etc.The CIT (A) ,after taking into account all the facts and circumstances

upheld the assessment. The DR invited our attention to the following portion

of the order of the CIT(A)

(ii) As rightly pointed out by the Assessing Officer, the impugned lands have to be held as non-agricultural in nature, for the following reasons: (a) The land is situated in proximity to industrial areas like Guduvanchery, Vandalur etc., on one side and to areas on the OMR (IT hub of Chennai) like Navalur, Siruseri, Kelambakkam etc. (b) The land in question has been sold to a renowned real estate company M/s Casa Grande Limited, who exploited the land for building villas in the Ponmar.

:-10-: ITA No. 2540/Chny/2016

(c) The sale consideration for 5.23 acres is Rs. 4.4 crores, which is a price normally obtained in the sale of building sites. (d) The land has been sold at an astronomical price at which no bonafide agriculturist would purchase nor could afford to purchase for genuine agricultural operations, given other constraints faced by agriculturists in that area like non- availability of assured water supply for irrigation, non-availability of labour for agricultural operations in view of the booming activity in the IT sector in the vicinity of the place and rapid industrial growth in the nearby areas etc. The Assessing Officer has also rightly pointed out that the assessee, having originally offered the Capital Gains arising from the impugned lands to Capital Gains, when confronted with the possibility of disallowance of claim for deduction of Indexed Cost of development amounting to Rs. 2.43 crores for want of evidence, has made a U-turn and only then claimed that the lands are agricultural lands. I fully agree with the Assessing Officer, that this claim itself is clearly an after-thought. Hence, taking into account, all the aforementioned facts, it is seen that the Assessing Officer is justified in rejecting the assessee’s claim that the lands in question are agricultural in nature and bringing to tax the Capital Gains arising from the sale thereof. The Assessing Officer is also justified in denying the claim of indexed cost of expenditure on development of land amounting to Rs. 2.43 crores for want of supporting evidence. The addition made by bringing to tax the Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 2,68,95,686/-, is upheld. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

and submitted that the above facts and circumstances of this case are clearly

distinguishable with reference to the cases relied on by the AR. So, he

pleaded to sustain the orders of the lower authorities.

material. The fact remains that the assessee filed his return electronically and

it is duly verified. The relevant portion of his computation is extracted as

under :

:-11-: ITA No. 2540/Chny/2016

Computation of Total Income

Income from Capital Gain (Chapter IV E) 16419510 Long Term Capital Gain Agriculture Land 10/10/2008 Sales Consideration 44000000 Less: indexed Cost Land 684804 F. 1993-94 287100/244*582 Land Development- 4665064 F.Y.1993-941955800/244*582 Land Development 4238039 F.Y. 1994-95 1886000/259*582 Land Development 3431315 F.Y. 1995-961656700/281*582 Land Development 2794936 F.Y. 1996-97 14,64700/305*582 Land Development 2150411 F. Y. 1997-98 1223000/331*582 Land Development 1715656 F.Y. 1998-991034700/351*582 Land Development 1464126 F.Y. 1999-2000978600/389*582 Land Development 1357235 F.Y. 2000-01 946800/406*582 Land Development 1033255 F.Y. 2001-02756300/426*582 Land Development 1516585 F.Y. 2002-03 1164800/447*582 ------------ 25051426 ------------- 18948574 Deduction u/s 54 2529064 ------------ Income from Capital Gain 16419510

Income from Other Sources (Chapter IV F) 3427 Interest from Bank 342726 Gross Total Income 1676223 Total Income 1676223 Round off u/s 288A 1676223

Tax Due 23546 Tax on Long Term Capital Gain 3283902 Total Tax 3307448 Surcharge @ 10% 330745 3638193 Education Cess 109146 3747339

:-12-: ITA No. 2540/Chny/2016

Interest u/s 234 A/B/C 213597 3960936 Tax payable 3960940 0 Deposit u/s 140A made on 14.05.2009

From the above, it is clear that the assessee has declared long term capital

gain of Rs. 1,64,19,510/- on the sale consideration of Rs. 4,00,40,000/-.

While computing the capital gain, he has claimed the indexed cost of land at

Rs. 6,84,804/-. Further, he has claimed huge land development cost from

financial year 1993-94 to financial year 2002-03, indexed them and arrived

such indexed cost of land development at Rs. 2,50,51,426/-. He has claimed

this sum against the sale consideration and arrived Rs. 1,89,48,574/- as the

capital gain, against which he claimed Rs. 25,29,064/- investment in house

property u/s. 54F. Thus, he has arrived the long term capital gains at Rs.

1,64,19,510/-, to which he added Rs. 3,42,726/- interest from bank and

arrived the gross total income at Rs. 1,67,62,240/-. On such income, he

worked out the tax and interest payable at Rs. 39,60,940/- and paid them on

14.05.2009, although, he filed the return of income of 29.07.2009. The filing

of a return in the form prescribed under section 139 is not an empty formality.

It assumes importance when the assessee has paid the self assessment tax

on the admitted income. The AO when he considers that it is necessary or

expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated his income in any

manner, he requires the assessee, by issue of a notice u/s 143(2) , to produce

:-13-: ITA No. 2540/Chny/2016

or cause to be produced before him any evidence on which the assessee may

rely in support of the return. In this case, the AO has called for the details of

land development expenses etc., which the assessee could not furnish and

hence he added Rs. 2,68,95,686/- to the returned income and completed the

assessment. As pointed out earlier, after the completion of the assessment,

before the CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the impugned land is

agricultural land and hence he is not liable to pay the taxes. On the remand

proceedings also, the assessee could not furnish any material in support of his

plea and hence, the CIT(A) confirmed the assessment. Before us, the

assessee pleads that the CIT(A) is wrong in dismissing the appeal in limine for

the substantial delay of 117 days in filing the appeal for failing to seek

condonation. The assessee pleads that the decision of the CIT(A) without

giving him an opportunity is wrong. Since, the CIT(A) has decided the appeal

on merit and the issues are being canvassed and considered on merit, we are

of the opinion that this issue is academic. On merit, once the assessee files

the return, discloses the basis of return and paid the taxes, he cannot claim

that he has committed a wrong in admitting certain income before the

appellate authority. Even then, the assessee could not furnish any material or

evidence as to how his return is wrong , what are the grounds on which such

mistake happened, the basic material on which such mistake was detected

etc. Further, he could not substantiate his claim either before the CIT(A) or

before us. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the

:-14-: ITA No. 2540/Chny/2016 CIT(A), but for the claim of deduction u/s. 54F. Since, the facts of this case

are peculiar as detailed supra, the case laws relied on by the AR are not

applicable to the facts of this case and hence, they are not dealt with.

Though, the Assessing Officer has pointed out in the remand report to the

CIT(A) that the only relief to which the assessee may be entitled is the

deduction u/s. 54F in respect of which additional evidence has been adduced

before the department for the first time during appellate proceedings, the

CIT(A) has not addressed this issue in his order. Considering the facts and

circumstances, we remit this issue back to the AO for a fresh examination.

The AO after giving due opportunity to the assessee shall decide this issue in

accordance with law. To this extent, the assesse’s grounds are allowed.

Order pronounced on Friday, the 20th day of April, 2018 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एसजयरामन) (धु�वु�आर.एलरे�डी) (S. JAYARAMAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखासद�य/Accountant Member �या�यकसद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, .दनांक/Dated: 20th April, 2018 JPV आदेशक) %�त0ल1प अ2े1षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ(/Appellant 2. %&यथ(/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु4त ) अपील(/CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयु4त/CIT 5. 1वभागीय%�त�न�ध/DR 6. गाड7फाईल/GF