SH. RAJESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

The grounds of appeal filed by assessee, which reads as under: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax has grossly erred in sustaining the applicability of Section 148 in the case of the appellant. That the provisions of Section 148 are not attracted in the least and written submissions made by the appellant have been brushed aside by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax without assigning any reason whatsoever.

That the capital gains arising on the acquisition of agricultural land is exempt from the capital gain tax both U/s.10(37) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and the section 54B of the which and have been ignored by the Learned Assessing Officer in the re-assessment

That the appellant had not filed any new evidence before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax and reliance had have been placed on the evidence already placed on record on original assessment proceedings.

That the reply filed by the Learned Assessing Officer in the remand report based on the admission of new evidence is wholly unsustainable. The learned Assessing officer has in no way disputed the submissions made in writing and sent to him for continents.

That the appellant had filed conclusive evidence to show that the land in question was agricultural land, the same having been acquired by the Government as a agricultural land and the entire proceeds from the said lands had been invested in the purchase of another agricultural land.

That there were no capital gains chargeable to tax.

That in any case the Learned Assessing Authority had erred in taking the cost of the land at NIL and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erroneously sustained the same.

That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax has grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.57,600/- which was claimed by the assessee in accordance with law and had been allowed after due consideration in the original assessment proceedings.

That the order as made is against law and facts of the case.”

Earlier this appeal was disposed off by the Tribunal vide order dated 09.08.2019. Thereafter, by MA order dated 14.10.2019 the same was recalled. Pursuant to the above recall, we have heard this appeal.

Income under the head income from House Property has been declared at Rs.134,400/-after claiming 30% under Section 24 on a/c of repairs at Rs.57,600/-. The respective deed on record shows that the gross amount of Rs.1,92,000/- as per license agreement dated 24th July, 2007 has been received by the assessee from Reliance Group on account of his allowing Installation of Antenna on his building roof. Since the receipt do not constitute any income from house property, the claim U/s 24 is not at all allowable, leading to excess allowance of Rs.57,600/-.

The assessee has shown the receipts of Rs.59,83,000/- as Agricultural Land Compensation in respect of his part share of land in Villages Bakoli, Bangar, UP, There are certain sale deeds on record which show very clearly that the said village is less than 8 K.M. of distance from city Anoop Shahar Road, Bullandshahar (UP) and hence the chargeability of CAPITAL GAIN was clearly attracted but there has been no clarification on record as to why the same is not chargeable to tax. Secondly, it appears from the records that assessee has not declared any agricultural income for rate purpose.

The statement and details furnished further reveals that the assessee has received cash gift of Rs.5 lacs from his father Shri Jile Singh. Apart from this, the assessee received Rs. 5 lacs as cash advance for sale of his bigha of land from one Shri Vinod Verma, Pappu and Vinod Tyagi on 5.4.2008. As per the statement recorded by the AO on Oath on 13.12.2011, Shri Vinod Verma stated that he is an assessee and maintaining bank account but no proof was adduced as to the withdrawal of the funds from his bank account from which the cash was advanced to the assessee under consideration. Since there are no documents, on

In another letter on record, it has been stated that the above referred advance of Rs. 5 lacs was returned back by the assessee in cash through his father during the year under consideration itself. This transaction also is in the nature of the cash receipt of loan by the assessee from his father as per accounting principles and then returned to the above parties.

As per another letter on record submitted by the AR of the assessee, it reveals that the assessee also received a sum of Rs. 4.50 lacs from one Shri Chhalesh Chandar as (BAYANA) against his agricultural land and the same was returned in the month of October, 2008 after withdrawing the amount from his bank account. These facts are not supported by any documents.

Referring to the above, Learned Counsel for the assessee pleaded that no information for escapement of income has come to the Assessing Officer. It is all from the material on record that he has picked up and stated that this is escapement of income not disclosed by the assessee earlier. He submitted this is the clear case of change of opinion not permissible in law. He further pleaded that no outside information has come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer which warranted valid reopening in this case.

Per contra, Learned DR relied upon the orders of authorities below.

In the result, appeal of assessee stands partly allowed.