ZAHID HASAN KHAN,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -5, YAMUNA NAGAR
No AI summary yet for this case.
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी िव"म िसंह यादव, लेखा सद" एवं "ी परेश म. जोशी, "ाियक सद" BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 122/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Zahid Hasan Khan बनाम The ITO C/o Gupta & Malhotra C.A Ward-5, 14, SC Gupta Lane, Raghunath Puri, Yamuna Nagar Yamuna Nagar "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BKJPK4030J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Dhruv Goel, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05/09/2024 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03/12/2024 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi dt. 03/01/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. In the present appeal, the Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions of learned AO in reopening of assessment u/s 147. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions of Ld. AO of making additions of Rs. 2,49,21,043/- on account of long term capital gain from sale of agriculture land.
That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions of Ld AO of computing indexed cost of acquisition of the land at Rs. 6,41,457/- as against Rs. 1,10,14,333/- claimed by the assessee.
That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing deduction u/s 54B of Rs. 1,49,52,000/- claimed by assessee.
That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 35,00,000/- claimed by assessee.
That the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts in confirming the additions of Rs. 2,49,21,043/- made by the AO by observing that assessee had not filed any details during appellate proceedings.
That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order u/s 250 without adherence to principles of natural justice.
That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or to substitute the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of case.”
Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was completed under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act vide order dt. 13/03/2015 wherein the AO brought to tax long term capital gains on sale of land amounting to Rs. 2,49,21,043/- in the hands of the assessee. In this case, it is noted that the AO had issued two notices under section 148 of the Act. In terms of reasons recorded before issuance of the first notice under section 148 on 21/23.03.2014, the AO noted that the assessee has sold his 42 Kanal 0 marla land situated at Village Kansapur to M/s Anchor Realters Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi for Rs. 2,14,72,500/- on 18/04/2006. In terms of the reasons recorded before the issuance of second notice under section 148 on 21/25.03.2014, the AO noted that the assessee has sold another piece of his agriculture land situated at Vilage Kansapur measuring 8 Kanal 0 Marla to M/s Som Build Well Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi for Rs. 40,90,000/- on 22.05.2006. As per the AO, the assessee’s land is covered within the ambit of capital asset as per the provision of Section 2(14) as the distance of land sold by the assessee in Village Kansapur falls within 8 Km from the municipal limit of Jagadhri. Further, for the purpose of determining the value of land as on 01.04.1981, the AO stated that the information has been sought regarding Fair Market Value (FMV) of land during the year 1981-82 from Sub
