SH. JEET RAM,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 182/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 November 2021AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional grounds of appeal, which were legal in nature. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the additional evidence and grounds, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold ancestral agricultural land and claimed deductions under Sections 54 and 54B. The Assessing Officer (AO) computed capital gains, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the AO's action. The assessee also had cash deposits in their bank account.

What were the issues?

Whether the agricultural land was a capital asset, and whether the deductions claimed under Sections 54 and 54B were admissible. The issue of cash deposits and charging of interest were also raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54,Section 54B,Section 234A,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, Shri Somit Agarwal, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri M.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10/11/2021

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the CIT (A)-1, Gurgaon for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under :- 1. “That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in upholding that the impugned agricultural land was “capital asset”, more so when it was not a “capital asset” and not chargeable to tax.

2.

That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of authorities below in bringing to tax the surplus arising on the sale of impugned agricultural land is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in not allowing the benefit of deduction of Rs.4,92,46,855/- claimed by assessee u/s 54B and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice.

4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in not allowing the benefit of deduction of Rs.4,92,46,855/- claimed by assessee u/s 54B, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the benefit of deduction of Rs.25,00,000/- claimed by assessee u/s 54 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice.

6. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in not allowing the benefit of deduction of Rs.25,00,000/- claimed by assessee u/s 54, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

7.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.3,88,245/- on account of cash deposits in bank account and that too without appreciating/considering the submissions of assessee and without observing the principles of natural justice.

8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A and 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961.

9.

That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

3. Return declaring income of Rs. 5,61,880/- was filed on 02.12.2013. During the course of assessment proceeding, the AO noted that there were deposits in the bank account of the appellant. The AO further noted that appellant had sold his ancestral agricultural land for Rs. 5,74,15,625/- on 29.11.2011 and the capital gains on this land was computed at Rs. 5,72,58,625/-. The appellant had claimed deduction of Rs. 79,70,000/- u/s 54 and Rs. 4,92,46,855/- u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act and the balance amount of Rs. 41,770/- was declared as Long Term Capital Gain in the return.

4.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed certain additional evidences as well as additional grounds before this Tribunal which may be admitted and the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the evidences as well as the grounds.

5.

Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). Ld. DR objected the admission of additional evidences as well as additional grounds.

6.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the additional grounds raised by the assessee before us are legal ground in relation to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we are admitting the same. As regards additional evidences are concerned, the same needs proper adjudication and verification. Therefore, we direct the AO to take proper cognizance of the additional evidence as well as to deal with the additional grounds as per law. Needless to say the assessee be given an opportunity by following principles of natural justice. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →