News shortcuts: From the Courts | Top Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | Professional Updates | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
« Latest Circulars »
  India Infrastructure Finance Company Limited, New Delhi
 Carestream Health Inc vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Shri Dhar Sabha Vaishno Devi vs. CIT(E) (ITAT Amritsar) (Third Member)
 Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ivan Singh vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) (Goa Bench)
 Notification No. 17/2020 Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
 DCIT, Circle 25(1), New Delhi Vs. Smt. Usha Rani Talla, B-5, Near Durga Mandir, Moti Nagar, New Delhi
 Exim Bank's Government of India supported Line of Credit of USD 11.13 million to the Government of the Republic of Suriname
 Implementation of Section 51A of UAPA, 1967 - Removal of two entries from 1267 List
 Notification No. 10/2020 Central Board Of Direct Taxes
 Address by Hon’ble President of India at NIBM Golden Jubilee Celebrations

Shri Dharm Chand, C/o M/s Kissan Agro Properties Khema Khatti Road, Opp. Thakkar Hospital, Fatehabad. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward -1, Fatehabad.
September, 09th 2019

Referred Sections:
Section 2(14)(III)(B) of the Income-tax Act,

Referred Cases / Judgments:
Virender Singh vs ITO, ITA No.3166/Del/2010
Virender Singh and also ITO vs Praveen Kumar, ITA No.3839/Del/2012 order dated 21.10.2016
Virender Singh vs ITO.

                  DELHI BENCH: `B' NEW DELHI


                           ITA No.5400/Del/2016
                          Assessment Year: 2009-10

   Shri Dharm Chand,                  vs     Income-tax Officer,
   C/o M/s Kissan Agro Properties            Ward -1, Fatehabad.
   Khema Khatti Road,
   Opp. Thakkar Hospital,                    Respondent
   PAN: BAKPC5602C
                   Assessee by: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
                                  Shri Shivansh Panoya, Advocate
                  Department by: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

                                            Date of Hearing: 13.08.2019
                                      Date of Pronouncement: 09.09.2019



      Aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2016 in Appeal No. 95/2014-15
passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), Hissar
{"CIT(A)"} for Assessment Years 2009-10, assessee preferred this appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that during the Financial year 2008-09, the assessee
sold certain agricultural land to M/s Soma New Town for a consideration of
Rs.79,08,778/- and Rs.44,62,062/- on account of two plots of land. In one plot
he is the co-owner with three other brothers whereas in respect of the other
besides the four brothers, two sisters were also there.

3. On receipt of AIR information, ld. AO made enquiries and resorted to the
proceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') after recording
reasons and by issuance of notice u/s 148 on 2.8.2013. Learned AO found that
the assessee filed return of income showing nil income. He concluded the
proceedings by order dated 24.11.2014 u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act by assessing
the income of the assessee at Rs.1,21,97,890/-.

4. Aggrieved by the said addition, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A)
and the ld. CIT(A) by order dated 8.8.2016 gave partial relief and the addition
qua the disallowance of claim of agricultural income was deleted while
confirming the addition qua the long term capital gains.

5.       At the outset, it is the submission on behalf of the assessee that the
assessee being an agriculturist not aware of income-tax procedures and nuances
involved therein and therefore, could not produce the documentary evidence at
an earlier stage but subsequently, on being advised they have gathered some
evidence in the shape of certificate from Tehsildar to the effect that the lands are
situated beyond 5 kms outside the municipal limits of Fatehabad; Letter of PWD
B&R Branch, Fatehabad showing that the metalled road from municipal limits
of Fatehabad towards the disputed land is 3.2 KM and the rest of the road is
`kacha road'; certificate from the Tehsildar to show that the balance road, which
is a `kacha road' is about 2 km proving thereby showing the total length of
distance at 5.2 kms; Notification u/s 2(1A)(c), Proviso, Clause (ii)(b) and
Section 2(14)(III)(B) of the Income-tax Act, area map and Google maps etc. and
since these documents would go to the root of the matter and necessary to
determine the tax liability, these documents may kindly be admitted for
complete and effective adjudication of the matter.

6. It is further submitted that the two sisters of the assessee by the name
Kaushalya Devi and Maya Devi also met with the same fate before the
authorities below and they prefer ITA No.5393 and 5403/Del/2016 and they also
being placed in identical situation produced addition evidence in support of their
claim and the Tribunal by order dated 16.3.2018 accepted additional evidence
and restored the matter to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to adjudicate the
issue afresh in the light of additional evidence by following the directions given
in the case of Virender Singh vs ITO, ITA No.3166/Del/2010 by order dated
27.6.2014. It is submitted that in view of the similarity of the facts, the same
course would be followed in this matter also.

7. We have heard the learned DR on this aspect also. Both Kaushalya Devi and
Maya Devi preferred appeals before this Tribunal and such appeals were
disposed of by order dated 16.3.2018 holding that the evidence sought to be
produced goes to the root of the matter. Further the Bench noticed the decisions
in the case of Virender        Singh and also ITO vs Praveen Kumar, ITA
No.3839/Del/2012 order dated 21.10.2016 and considering the factual matrix,
set aside the order and remanded the issue to the file of the ld. AO to adjudicate
the issue afresh in the light of the decision in the case of Virender Singh (supra)
after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

8.       We are convinced with the facts and grounds in all these matters are
identical so also the plea taken in respect of filing of the additional evidence.
On a consideration of the nature of the evidence sought to be produced, we
are satisfied that such evidence has a bearing on the extent of liability to tax
of the assessee.    We, therefore, find that the evidence sough to be produced is
relevant and since all the endeavor of the authorities under the Income- tax Act

is to reach the just tax liability of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion
that no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties by admitting all the
additional evidence and setting aside the matter to the ld. AO to appreciate the
contentions of the assessee in the light of such additional evidence.

9. We accordingly allow the additional evidence to be produced and while
setting aside the impugned order, remand the matter to the file of the ld. AO for
disposing it afresh after taking into consideration the additional evidence in the
light of the directions given in the case of Virender Singh vs ITO.

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

      Order pronounced in the Open Court on 9th September, 2019.

         Sd/-                                          sd/-
  (PRASHANT MAHARISHI)                           (K.NARASIMHA CHARY)
  ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                JUDICIAL MEMBER

  Dated:         September, 2019
  Copy forwarded to:
  1.    Appellant
  2.    Respondent
  3.    CIT
  4.    CIT(Appeals)
  5.    DR: ITAT
                                                       ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
                                                             ITAT NEW DELHI

  Draft dictated on                                  16.08.2019
  Draft placed before author                         19.08.2019
  Draft proposed & placed before the second member
  Draft discussed/approved by Second Member.
  Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS

Kept for pronouncement on
Date of uploading order on the website
File sent to the Bench Clerk
Date on which file goes to the AR
Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
Date of dispatch of Order.


Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2020 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting