sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
« From the Courts »
 ITO Coy. Ward – 11(3) Room No. 420D C. R. Building New Delhi vs. Hi Life Exports (P) Ltd. Ward – 191, A, Ekta Marg, Western Avenue, Sainik Farms, New Delhi -110062
 Sh. Pradip Kumar Khator 1080, First Floor, Sector-46, Gurgaon, Haryana. vs ITO Ward 3(3), Gurgaon
 Sh. Jai Prakash 261, Block E-19, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi. vs ITO Ward 39(5), New Delhi.
 Vikram Krishnan vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax
 ITO vs. Synergy Finlease Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)
 Sir Mohd. Yusuf Trust vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 NuPower Renewables Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 CIT vs. Gopal Shri Scrips Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)
 ITO, Ward-271(1),Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi vs. M/s. B2B Management, 5/47, Shyam Singh Street, Gopi Nath, New Delhi
 Shri Opinder Singh Virk Pravesh Kumar Sharma, R/o 493- L, Model Town, Karnal. vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Karnal.
 SplendorLandbase Ltd., Splendor Forum, 502-511 Plot No 3, Jasola District Centre,New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3, New Delhi.

Girdhari Lal C/o Akhilesh Kumar, Chamber No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam RDC Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Vs. ITO Advocate Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad.
June, 15th 2015
                       DELHI BENCH: `C' NEW DELHI
                         I.T.A .No.-3213/Del/2013
                      (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08)
Girdhari Lal                         Vs.        ITO
C/o Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate                    Ward-1(2),
Chamber No. 206-207, Ansal "Satyam"             Ghaziabad.
RDC Raj Nagar,

(APPELLANT)                                    (RESPONDENT)

                  Assessee by:-Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv.
                  Revenue by:- Sh. T Vasan Than, Sr. DR
                  Date of Hearing: 07/05/2015
                  Date of Pronouncement: 12/06/2015



     This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the

order of ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad in Appeal No.116/2009-10/GZB dated

26.03.2013 for the assessment year 2007-08. These grounds raised in

this appeal are as under:
                                            I.T.A .No.-3213/Del/2013    2

"1. Because, the order of learned lower authority is bad in law

     and against the facts and circumstances of the case and

     hence is unsustainable.

2.   Because, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax
     (Appeals) grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that
     the Ld. AO has totally failed to consider the claim u/s
     2(14)(iii)/45 being gain from sale of agricultural land/stores
     situated beyond 12 KM from the municipal limits and instead
     rejected the same summarily while none of the lower authority
     neither considered the evidences/material on the record nor
     conducted any enquiry about the same. Hence orders of both the
     lower authorities are against provisions of natural justice and
     there is no speaking/reasoned order.

3.   Because, without prejudice to above but as an alternative,
     learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further failed to
     appreciate the fact that the Ld. AO has not even considered the
     fact that even if sale of rooms/stores are not to be considered
     u/s 2(14) as above than the claim about the land should have
     been considered u/s 2(14).

4.   Because, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly
     erred in not appreciating the fact that section 50C has no
     applicability as property under question is a rural agricultural
     land at the relevant time.
                                                 I.T.A .No.-3213/Del/2013         3

     5.   Because, without prejudice to above but only as an alternative,
          learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not
          appreciating the unusual surrounding circumstances of the case
          on the record under which it was required to refer matter to DVO
          u/s 50C(2)(b) of the Act.

          As such rejection of claim u/s 2(14)(iii) and application of
          provisions of section 50C are illegal and consequent addition of
          Rs.3381514/- is not sustainable hence it is hereby prayed that
          the total addition may kindly be quashed. Without prejudice to
          the above but only in alternative, if it is not possible to allow the
          above prayer than it is alternatively prayed that Ld. AO may
          kindly be directed to examine the issue afresh in the interest of
          justice as deemed fit by the Hon'ble Court."

2.    Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is

individual and derived income under the head of capital gains and

income from other sources. The return of income for the A.Y. 2007-

08 was filed on 31st March 2008, declaring income of Rs.1,45,140/-.

After processing the return of income under the provision of section

143(1) of the Income Tax Act, the case was selected for scrutiny

assessment by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act and the

assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act vide order dated
                                          I.T.A .No.-3213/Del/2013    4

18th December 2009 at total income of Rs.33,92,830/- by making

addition of Rs.33,81,514/- under the provisions of section 50C of the

Act in respect of land sold by him.

3.   Aggrieved by this assessment order an appeal was filed before

the ld. CIT(A) Ghaziabad, contending inter alia that the provisions of

section 50C cannot be applied in the instant case, inasmuch as the

property sold was agriculture land situated beyond 12 K.M. from the

Municipal Corporation limits. Therefore, the land is covered by this

provision of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act therefore, he contended that

the provisions of section 50C cannot be made applicable to this

transaction. However, the ld. CIT(A) without going into this issue

whether the property sold is agriculture land within the meaning of

provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act or not simply after referring

to certain case laws governing the provisions of section 50C of the

Act, dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the

appellant had come up with the present appeal.
                                          I.T.A .No.-3213/Del/2013   5

4.   It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the transaction is

covered by provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, and therefore,

the question of invoking the provisions of section 50C does not arise

inasmuch as the gains if any, arising out of transaction are exempt

from capital gains. On the other hand the ld. DR relied on the orders

of the lower authorities.

5.   We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant

material placed on record. It appears that the AO had not considered

the issue whether the land is agriculture land or not. Even the ld.

CIT(A) despite filing the evidence before him simply ignored the

submissions made in this regard without assigning any reasons.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file

of the AO to consider the evidence brought on record and take a

view whether the land sold agriculture is or not. If the land sold was

agriculture land within the meaning of provision of section 2(14)(iii)

of the Act then the question of invoking the provisions of section 50C

does not arise. Accordingly, with the above directions, the matter is
                                            I.T.A .No.-3213/Del/2013   6

restored to the file of the AO for such disposal after giving adequate

opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

6.     In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

       Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/06/2015.

       Sd/-                                           Sd/-

  (G. C. GUPTA)                          (INTURI RAMA RAO)


Copy forwarded to:

1.   Appellant
2.   Respondent
3.   CIT
4.   CIT(Appeals)
5.   DR: ITAT
                                                     ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
                                              I.T.A .No.-3213/Del/2013    7


1.    Draft dictated on                                           PS

2.    Draft placed before author           11/06/2015             PS

3.    Draft proposed & placed before                              JM/AM
      the second member

4.    Draft  discussed/approved       by                          JM/AM
      Second Member.

5.    Approved Draft comes to the                                 PS/PS

6.    Kept for pronouncement on                                   PS

7.    File sent to the Bench Clerk                                PS

8.    Date on which file goes to the AR

9.    Date on which file goes to the
      Head Clerk.

10.   Date of dispatch of Order.
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - We Bring IT. Offshore software outsourcing company. We use Global Delivery Model (GDM) and believe in Follow The Sun principle

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions