Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश / O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 17.09.2020 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-II, Indore [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 19.12.2017 passed by learned ITO, Ward-4(5), Indore [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2015-16, the Revenue has filed this appeal on following grounds:
“(1) The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in considering the provision of Section 50C is effective in the instant case relying the proviso is curative nature, rationalization measure and retrospective operation whereas the same proviso would be effective from 01.04.2017 and not applicable in this case.
ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 (2) The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not considering the working of cost of acquisition of the said land by the AO on the basis of sale consideration of adjoining land situated in same geographical measure. (3) The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the amount of Rs. 31,00,000/- whereas the assessee failed to furnish the relevant documents of transaction as well as failed to produce/appearance of the recipient before the AO for recording the statement. (4) The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in allowing exemption of Rs. 2,50,03,000/- u/s 54B whereas it was clear from the certificate issued by the Teheshildar that the impugned land sold out by the assessee was vacant and not used for agriculture activities since 5-6 years. (5) The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting passing the appellate order without calling for proper report from the concerned AO.”
The registry has informed that that the present appeal is filed after a delay of 22 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee prayed that the delay has occurred due to Covid-19 Pandemic. Ld. AR further placed reliance on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 read with Misc. Applications by which suo motu extension of the limitation-period for filing of appeals w.e.f. 15.03.2020 under all laws has been granted; hence there is no delay in fact. We confronted Ld. DR for Revenue who agreed to the submission of Ld. AR. In view of this, we proceed with hearing of appeal, there being no delay.
Brief facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee- individual filed return of relevant AY 2015-16 on 26.08.2015 which was subjected to scrutiny-assessment u/s 143(3). While carrying out scrutiny, the AO found that the assessee had declared capital gain from sale of an agricultural land admeasuring 2.600 hectare situated at Village – Bada Bangarda, Tehsil – Hatod, District – Indore. The AO further observed that while computing taxable gain, the assessee claimed deduction of indexed cost of acquisition, transfer expenses and exemption u/s 54B/54F from full value of consideration and declared net capital gain of Rs. Nil. The AO increased taxable gain by making following modifications:
ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 (i) The assessee declared full value of consideration at Rs. 5,82,00,000/- which the AO increased to Rs. 6,75,25,000/- in terms of section 50C. This resulted in an addition of Rs. 93,25,000/-.
(ii) The assessee claimed indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 28,65,777/- which the AO reduced to Rs. 23,84,241/-. This resulted in an addition of Rs. 4,81,536/-.
(iii) The assessee claimed expenses on transfer of Rs. 2,60,94,000/- which the AO reduced to Rs. 2,24,72,000/-. This resulted in an addition of Rs. 36,22,000/-.
(iv) The assessee claimed exemption of Rs. 2,50,03,000/- [Rs. 45,03,000 + 2,05,00,000/-] u/s 54B which the AO did not allow.
The assessee, aggrieved by above modifications, contested in first- appeal whereupon the CIT(A) allowed full relief qua (i), (ii) and (iv) and part relief of Rs. 31,00,000/- qua (iii). Now, the revenue being aggrieved by relief given by CIT(A), has come in next appeal before us. The grounds raised by revenue sequentially deal all items of relief one by one.
Ground No. 1:
In this ground, the revenue claims that the CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the first proviso to section 50C was having retrospective operation.
The precise facts are such that the assessee sold a land admeasuring 2.600 acres through a registered sale-deed dated 12.05.2014 for Rs. 5,82,00,000/-, the valuation made by stamps authority was Rs. 6,75,25,000/-. While computing taxable gain, the assessee took full value of consideration at Rs. 5,82,00,000/- on the premise that the impugned sale was made pursuant to a sale-agreement made in the year 2012-13 and the assessee also received a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- through cheque No.
ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 2033811 dated 06.03.2013 towards sale-consideration. However, due to a dispute created by assessee’s family members, namely Shri Krishna Murari Gupta (brother-in-law) and Smt. Tara Gupta (sister-in-law), the sale-deed could not be executed. Ultimately, after settlement with brother-in-law and sister-in-law, the sale-deed could be executed in the year 2014-15 and during the intervening period, the valuation of stamps authority got increased from Rs. 5,82,00,000/- to Rs. 6,75,25,000/-. The assessee invited attention of AO to first proviso to section 50C which provides that where the ‘date of agreement’ and the ‘date of registration’ are not same, the valuation of stamps authority as on the ‘date of agreement’ may be taken for the purpose of full value of consideration, subject only to the rider that the consideration agreed or a part thereof must have been received by way of account payee cheque or account payee draft or electronic clearing system. The assessee submitted that she satisfied the conditions of first proviso to section 50C and hence eligible to take benefit of same. Although the AO did not have any dispute of factual aspects yet he rejected assessee’s reply by observing thus:
The contention of the assessee presented through aforesaid reply is not acceptable as the first proviso to section 50C of the Act has been effective from 01/04/2017 which is not applicable in the instant case as the land was sold on 12/05/2014.
During first-appeal, the CIT(A) accepted assessee’s contention that the first proviso to section 50C was having retrospective operation. Thus, the controversy between assessee and revenue, as raised in ground No. 1, is with regard to the applicability date of the first proviso to section 50C only. While the assessee claims that the said proviso was appliable to AY 2015-16 under consideration being retrospective in operation, the AO is insisting that it was introduced through Finance Act, 2016 applicable from 01.04.2017 i.e. from AY 2017-18. In this regard, on perusal of order of CIT(A), we find that the CIT(A) has decided controversy in favour of assessee by relying upon following decisions where it has been held that the first proviso to section ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 50C was introduced to remove an undue hardship being faced by assessees; that the said proviso is curative in nature and therefore retrospective in operation applicable from 01.04.2003 when the section 50C was introduced:
(a) ITAT, Vishakhapatnam in Chalasani Naga Ratna Kumari Vs. ITO, order dated 23.12.2016 (b) ITAT, Ahmedabad in Dharma Shibai Sonani Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 1237/Ahd/2013 order dated 30.09.2016.
(c) ITAT, Indore in Manjo Yadav & Anr. Vs. ITO, order dated 09.10.2018.
(d) ITAT, Indore in DCIT Vs. Indori Foot Care Pvt. Ltd., order dated 02.05.2017 following the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Lal and Smt. Shanti Lal Vs. CIT 365 ITR 389.
The decisions at S.No. (c) and (d) are rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Indore itself. Ld. DR for revenue is not able to point out any ruling holding that the first proviso to section 50C was prospective and not retrospective. Faced with this situation, we have no reason to deviate from the view taken in aforesaid decisions relied upon by CIT(A). Accordingly, we approve the order of CIT(A). This ground is thus dismissed.
Ground No. 2:
In this ground, the revenue claims that the CIT(A) was not justified in not considering the cost of acquisition computed and allowed by AO.
Facts apropos to this ground are such that while computing taxable gain, the assessee adopted the option of Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 1,07,638/- per hectare, accordingly computed cost of acquisition of 2.600 hectare of land sold by her at Rs. 2,79,861/- which was further
ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 indexed to Rs. 28,75,777/-. This way, the assessee claimed deduction of indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 28,75,777/-. During assessment- proceeding, the AO proposed a very low figure of Rs. 10,000/- per hectare. When the AO show-caused assessee, the assessee submitted that the proposed value of Rs. 10,000/- was unjustified. To show this, the assessee submitted a sample sale-deed dated 21.12.1981 executed by independent parties in adjoining vicinity where a comparable transaction of sale of land admeasuring 0.201 hectare was made for Rs. 18,000/-, which showed effective rate per hectare at Rs. 89,552/- (18,000/0.201). On reply of assessee, the AO adopted the figure of Rs. 89,552/- per hectare, accordingly computed cost of acquisition of 2.600 hectare of land sold by assessee at Rs. 2,32,832/- which was further indexed to Rs. 23,84,241/-. This way, the AO allowed indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 23,84,241/- as against Rs. 28,75,777/- claimed by assessee which resulted in an addition of Rs. 4,81,536/-. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) rejected AO’s approach of relying upon the sample sale-deed without considering specific parameters of assessee’s land and deleted addition.
Before us, Ld. DR for revenue strongly supported AO’s action and opposed CIT(A)’s order. He submitted that it is the assessee who herself filed a copy of the sample-deed which revealed fair market value at Rs. 89,552/- per hectare. Ld. DR argued that when the AO adopted assessee’s own submission, where is the question of having any grievance?
Replying to above, Ld. AR for assessee submitted that it is true that the assessee herself filed sample-deed to AO but that filing was basically to demonstrate to AO that his proposal of adopting fair market value at Rs. 10,000/- per hectare was grossly wrong. But the AO mechanically adopted the rate of Rs. 89,552/- per hectare even without taking care to look into the differences between assessee’s land and the land transacted in sample-deed. To explain one such difference which is very significant, Ld. AR carried us to sale-deed of assessee’s land at Page No. 11-18 of Paper-Book-2 and the ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 impugned sample deed at Page No. 4-10 of Paper-Book-2. Referring to the locations of the lands transacted by respective deeds, Ld. AR showed that the assessee’s land was situated in village “Bada Bangarda” whereas the land transacted in sample-deed was situated in village “Chota Bangarda”, thus the two lands were located in different locations. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee submitted sample deed with two-fold perceptions, (i) the AO would come to know that his proposal of adopting 10,000/- per hectare was bad and accordingly drop his proposal, and (ii) the AO shall consider higher value of assessee’s land having regard to the sample-deed. Although the AO dropped his proposal of 10,000/- per hectare but still mechanically adopted the value of Rs. 89,552/- per hectare shown by sample-deed as yardstick. Ld. AR submitted that the AO must have given due regard to the differences in two lands, for example the very important point of locational difference. Ld. AR submitted that had the AO taken due care, he would have not upset the fair value adopted by assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has correctly appreciated all these aspects and thereafter reversed AO’ fallacious action. He submitted that the order of CIT(A) is very correct and must be upheld.
We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the case record including the orders of lower-authorities as also the documents placed in Paper-Book. The dispute between the parties is qua the estimation of fair market value as on 01.04.1981. While the assessee estimated fair market value at Rs. 1,07,638/- per hectare, the AO adopted value at Rs. 89,552/- per hectare. It is a fact that the AO picked the value of Rs. 89,552/- from a sample-deed submitted by assessee. Now, the question before us is whether the AO was correct in doing so? The assessee in this regard is claiming that the AO has picked figure without taking care of the differences in two lands i.e. the land sold by assessee and land transacted by sample-deed. One vital difference pointed out by Ld. AR is such that the assessee’s land was situated in a better village called “Bada Bangarda”
ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 whereas the land transacted in sample-deed was situated in a smaller village “Chota Bangarda”. We find much weightage in this point itself. Therefore, the AO’s action of applying the figure of Rs. 89,552/- from sample-deed is faulty. In such a case, the next question would of course arise as to what would be the correct estimation? In this regard, the Ld. CIT(A) has made following conclusion accepting the estimation made by assessee:
“4.3 At the time when the land/property in question was sold, there were no guidelines as issued by the government for that area, as such it was prerogative of the District Registrar to determine and decide cost in respect of each piece of land going by specific parameters, i.e. location, size, shape, etc. The AO had taken the indexed cost after following the sample deed as an extract yardstick without having regard to exact location and other parameters specific to the land in question. On careful examination of this matter and the attendant circumstances, the addition so made by the AO is hereby deleted; accordingly, ground of appeal No. 4 is allowed.” On perusal of above order, we find that the CIT(A) has accepted the fair value estimated by assessee. The conclusion of CIT(A) is resting upon two premises, namely (i) there were no guideline values issued by Govt. for the area in which assessee’s land was situated for valuation as on 01.04.1981 and (ii) the AO had wrongly taken the cost following the sample-deed as yardstick without having regard to exact location and other parameters. Before us, the revenue is not able to impugn the order of CIT(A) giving these findings/conclusions. The revenue’s effort is only to insist that the value adopted by AO as per sample-deed must be upheld but this pleading is meritless when it is clearly apparent that there is a significant locational difference in the land sold by assessee and land transacted by sample-deed. Therefore, we are inclined to the accept the order passed by CIT(A). The same is hereby approved. This ground is also dismissed.
Ground No. 3:
ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16
In this ground, the revenue claims that the CIT(A) has erred in granting deduction of Rs. 31,00,000/- claimed by assessee as payment made to Smt. Tara Gupta.
The assessee made a payment of Rs. 31,00,000/- to Smt. Tara Gupta (sister-in-law) for clearing title of land and claimed same as deduction in computing taxable gain. The AO disallowed deduction vide para No. 6(iii) of assessment-order by observing that the assessee did not file any details like Confirmation, copy of PAN and ITR nor even produced the payee for recording statements. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) allowed deduction by holding thus:
“6.2 I have gone through this matter carefully and as a submitted by the appellant, Smt. Tara Gupra has furnished her confirmation of having received said amount towards settlement of family dispute. Smt. Tara Gupta is real sister-in-law of the appellant and had staked a claim to the property and wanted her share in the sale proceeds received by the appellant. It is exactly this family dispute because of which there was delay in the registry of sale- deed for which Agreement to Sale took place in the year 2012-13 and finally sale-deed was registered in 2014-15 (grounds of appeal
Nos. 1, 2 & 3 supra). In view of clear evidence of payment of Rs. 31,00,000/- to Smt. Tara Gupta and her written confirmation no disallowance of the said amount is warranted. Therefore, addition/disallowance of Rs. 31,00,000/- is deleted and ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed.”
15. Ld. DR for revenue strongly supported the order of AO and submitted that the assessee has shown payment to Smt. Tara Gupta who happens to be sister-in-law. He submitted that when the assessee claimed deduction of an expenditure, it was bounden duty of assessee to prove the same. But the assessee could neither submit the a/c confirmation nor the ITR details of the payee nor even produced the payee before AO for examination. Therefore, the assessee has failed to discharge her obligation and the AO has rightly disallowed the unproved deduction claimed by assessee.
16. Per contra, Ld. AR for assessee supported the order of CIT(A) with reference to the documents filed in Paper-Book. He explained the factual matrix of impugned land. He submitted that the land was an ancestral
ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 property owned by assessee’s father-in-law (Shri Mangi Lal Gupta) and the assessee received through a registered-will dated 04.08.2005 executed by her father-in-law, copy of will is filed at Page No. 23-25 of Paper-Book-2. However, Smt. Tara Gupta (assessee’s sister-in-law) alongwith other successors created a dispute and the matter travelled to Tahsildar, Hatod Tahsil, in Case No. 3/35/6 of 2010-11. Then, the assessee had to enter into a compromise with Smt. Tara Gupta vide consent-agreement dated 17.04.2012 agreeing to pay a sum of Rs. 31,00,000/- to Smt. Tara Gupta, copy of consent-agreement is filed at Page No. 22 of Paper-Book-2. After such compromise, the impugned Case No. 3/35/6 of 2010-11 was decided in favour of assessee vide order dated 30.04.2012 passed by Tehsildar, copy of order is also filed at Page No. 26-33 of Paper-Book-2. Then, the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 31,00,000/- to Smt. Tara Gupta through various a/c payee cheques drawn on A/c No. 0478901100000750 with Yes Bank, Gorakunj Choraya, Indore branch, copy of bank statement showing debit entries of payments is filed at Page No. 73-74 of Paper-Book-1. Therefore, Ld. AR argued, the assessee has claimed a genuine deduction evidenced by documents and the AO has wrongly disallowed assessee’s claim but subsequently, the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the same. Ld. AR requested to uphold CIT(A)’s order.
We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities as well as the above-noted documents held in Paper-Book to which our attention has been drawn. On a careful scrutiny, we find that the assessee acquired impugned property from her father-in- law through will. However, Smt. Tara Gupta and other persons brought a case disputing assessee’s ownership and claiming antecedent interest. Then, the assessee made a settlement with Smt. Tara Gupta agreeing to pay a sum of Rs. 31,00,000/- and thereafter the case was got decided in favour. Pursuant to such compromise, the assessee made payment of pre-agreed sum to Smt. Tara Gupta through banking channel. All these facts are clearly
ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 established by respective documentary evidences filed in Paper-Book. The revenue is not able to controvert these facts. Therefore, it is well established by sufficient documentary evidences that the assessee has made payment for closing dispute and clearing her title. We find that the CIT(A) has taken a proper view of the issue and allowed deduction. We do not find any fallacy in the view taken by CIT(A). Therefore, we uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the revenue’s ground.
Ground No. 4:
In this ground, the revenue is claiming that the CIT(A) has erred in allowing exemption u/s 54B to assessee ignoring the certificate of Tehsildar indicating that the land sold by assessee was not used for agricultural purpose.
To understand this issue, we may firstly re-produce the order of AO in entirety, as under:
“Disallowance of exemption claim u/s 54B of the IT Act (7) I looked in to the submission as produced by the assessee and it has been found that the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54B treating the original land sold out was an agricultural land. In support of her claim, she furnished B-I, P-II certified by the concerned Patwari, produced a sale bill of crop borne during the financial year relevant to the AY etc. 7(i) In this connection the concerned AO of the Circle 4(1), Indore, who just completed the assessment proceedings for the same A.Y. of Shri Krishna Murari Gupta to whom the assessee has made payment of his share, shared some information with me and provided a copy of letter of Tehsildar, Hatod, Dt. Indore dated 06/11/2017 where it has been mentioned by him that the original land which was sold by the assessee vide survey no. 299/2/2 admeasuring 2.600 hectare had remained without agricultural activities since last 5-6 years. Since the authority concerned given the said certificate with reference the same Patwari and in comparison to this certificate the evidences produced by the assessee like Patwari’s certificate viz. B-I, P-II and sale bills of crops remained meaningless and found to be fabricated, to claim exemption u/s 54B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereas the fact is that the land sold was not agricultural land and therefore such exemption is not allowable. 7(ii) In this issue the assessee was asked to give reply vide order-sheet dated 15.12.2017 why the said land sold out should not be considered as ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 non-agricultural land in reference the letter issued by the Tehsildar concerned in the case of Shri Krishna Murari Gupta whereas the Survey no. was identical in both of the cases. In compliance to the same, the assessee’s AR replied that his client, the assessee, has communicated with the same Tehsildar and filed an application addressing to him for reconsidering the matter while the certificate of Patwari concerned viz. B-I, P-II has already been produced before the Tehsildar. The assessee also said that the Tehsildar required more days to further consider, this is why the assessee requested to this office to re-verify while original verification has already made by the said Tehsildar. Thereby the plea of the assessee is not being considered for being time-barred matter. 7(iii) Therefore, the submissions provided by the assessee on the issue have been duly considered but not found acceptable. As it is not being justified that the original land was utilized for agricultural activities hence claimed exemptions u/s 54B of Rs. 4503000/- as well as amount invested in capital gain account scheme with the Union Bank of India of Rs. 20500000/- are being disallowed and addable to the income of the assessee.” [Emphasis supplied] 20. Thus, the crux of the matter is such that the AO treated the land sold by assessee as non-agricultural relying upon an information shared by another assessing authority of Shri Krishna Murari Gupta that the land sold by assessee had remained without agricultural activities for last 5-6 years. The basis of such information is a certificate/letter dated 06.11.2007 issued by Tehsildar, Tehsil-Hatod. The AO has also mentioned that the said certificate/letter of Tehsildar is with reference to the same Patwari as in assessee’s case. The AO relied heavily upon such information shared by another assessing authority in juxtaposition to the documents submitted by assessee, namely Patwari’s documents like B-I and P-II and the Bill of crop, to show that the land was in fact agricultural and cultivated. When the AO show-caused assessee, the assessee filed an application supported by his own documents viz. B-I and P-II, to concerned Tehsildar for re-consideration of the matter. Furthermore, the assessee also requested the AO to carry out necessary verification. But the AO rejected assessee’s plea on the premise that it was a time-barring matter. Accordingly, the AO disallowed exemption. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) passed a detailed order rejecting AO’s action and allowing assessee’s claim.
ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16
Before us, Ld. DR for revenue submitted the AO received a clear information from other assessing authority of department revealing that the land sold by assessee was not an agricultural land and the other authority’s view was also based on a tangible material in the shape of a certificate/letter of Tehsildar. Therefore, the AO had sufficient reason to hold that the assessee’s land was non-agricultural. He submitted that the AO’s conclusion is not baseless; it is very much based on a cogent material and must be approved.
Per contra, Ld. AR carried us to a few documents filed in Paper- Book which go to establish that the impugned land was an agricultural land:
(a) Copy of B-I/P-II documents maintained by Patwari for the year 2010- 11, 2011-12 and 2013-14 showing that Soyabeen and Wheat were cultivated over the land and also showing that the impugned land was irrigated. These documents are also certified by Tehsildar (Page No. 1- 3 of Paper-Book-2).
(b) Two invoices dated 20.03.2013 and 24.03.2014 issued by the office of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Indore in Form No. 3 as an evidence under Rule 22(2) of Mandi Samiti Rules, confirming sale of wheat made by assessee to M/s Ritesh Enterprises, Indore (Page No. 75 and 76 of Paper-Book-1).
(c) Copy of ITR for AY 2013-14 filed by assessee on 26.03.2014 declaring agricultural income of Rs. 2,25,000/- (Page No. 77-79 of Paper-Book- 1).
Additionally, Ld. AR submitted that the will of Shri Mangi Lal Gupta under which the assessee acquired the impugned land (Page No. 23 of Paper-Book- 2) and the Order dated 30.04.2012 passed in Case No. 3/35/6 of 2010-11 (Page No. 27 and 31 of Paper-Book-2) also have a categorical mention that ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 the impugned land was being cultivated for agriculture purposes. Ld. AR submitted that the AO has wrongly converted ‘good proof’ submitted by assessee into ‘no proof’. However, the CIT(A) has analysed the case of assessee aptly and passed a well-reasoned. To show this, Ld. AR carried us to Para No. 7.2 to 7.20 of the order passed by CIT(A) and read over a significant part of these paras line by line. Finally, Ld. AR prayed that the order of CIT(A) must be upheld.
In rejoinder, Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) is also a facts-finding authority and he could also get the enquiry done before giving relief to assessee.
Replying to above, Ld. AR submitted that the primary documents evidencing the claim of agricultural land like B-I/P-II, Sale bills of crop, ITR of assessee assessed by department, etc. were already on record and there is no defect whatsoever in those documents found or pointed out by AO. In such a situation, why should the CIT(A) make further enquiry? He submitted that the AO has simply preferred the certificate/letter of Tehsildar taken by another assessing authority in a different case but that certificate/letter itself was against the statutory documents in the form of B- I/P-II maintained by very same Patwari and certified by Tehsildar in assessee’s case. That is why the assessee applied to concerned Tehsildar for re-consideration and also requested the AO to make verification. But the AO rejected assessee’s submission on an untenable footing that the case was getting time-barred. He submitted that the CIT(A) has categorically depricated the AO’s action in louder terms in his order and passed a well- reasoned order.
We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authority as also the documents held in Paper-Book. On a careful consideration, we find that the assessee has filed copies of several
ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 documents as noted in foregoing paragraph, which we do not wish to repeat for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, which clearly show that the assessee has cultivated land, sold crop and also declared agricultural income in ITR. We find that the document filed at Page No. 1-3 of Paper- Book-2 is a document called “B-I/P-II” maintained as a statutory-record under Govt. Rules. The said document has been maintained by Patwari and issued as a certified copy by office of Tehsildar. Therefore, it is wrong on the part of AO to allege this document as fabricated document. This document itself shows agricultural crop having been grown during the years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2013-14. The AO was prompted, on the basis of information received from another assessing authority, to show-cause assessee with a proposal to treat assessee’s land as non-agricultural. Although there is nothing wrong in show-causing assessee but when the assessee made an application to Tehsildar for re-consideration and also made a specific request to AO to carry out necessary verification, it was not at all fair on the part of AO to reject assessee’s request just by saying that the case of assessee was getting time-barred. Needless to mention that the AO himself show-caused assessed on 15.12.2017 and in response, the assessee took immediate action of making application to Tehsildar as well as a specific request to AO, there is no lack of activeness on the part of assessee. We find that the CIT(A) has made an extensive analysis and passed following order:
ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16 ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16
On perusal of order of CIT(A), we find that the CIT(A) has given vehement findings/conclusions supported by several judicial precedents and passed a detailed order. We do not wish to re-narrate same as it would only make our order lengthy. Suffice it to say that the order of CIT(A) is a proper adjudication of assessee’s issue. Therefore, we do not have any reason to upset his order, the same is hereby approved. This ground raised by revenue is also dismissed.
Ground No. 5:
In this ground, the revenue has mentioned that the CIT(A) was not justified in passing the appellate order without calling remand-report from concerned AO. However, during hearing before us, the parties have not made any submission qua this ground, perhaps realizing that everything was already on record and there were infirmities in the adjudication by AO which only set right by CIT(A), hence there was no necessity of remand- report. We, therefore, dismiss this ground.
ITO-4(3), Indore v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta - AY 2015-16
Resultantly, this appeal of revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.02.2024.