Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Smt. K. Leelavathy, Bangalore vs Department Of Income Tax on 15 March, 2010
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH 'B'
BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT
and
SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.997(Bang)/2010
(Assessment year: 2005-06)
and
ITA No.998(Bang)/2010
(Assessment year: 2005-06)
Income-tax Officer,
Ward 3(4),
Bangalore. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Smt. K.Leelavathy,
65, Vani Vilas Road,
Basavanagudi, Bangalore.
2. Shri T.Raghavendra Gowda,
65, Vani Vilas Road,
Basavanagudi, Bangalore. ... Respondents
Appellant by: Smt.Amrita Ranjan.
Respondents by : Shri S.Ranganath.
O R D E R
Per Smt. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JM :
These appeals by the revenue are directed against the orders of the CIT(A)-II, Bangalore, dated 15-3-2010 for the assessment year 2005-06 in respect of the abovementioned two assessees.
2. The revenue is aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) in directing to levy long term capital gains as claimed by the ITA Nos.997 & 998(Bang)/2010 Page 2 of 3 assessee by following the decision of the ITAT in the case of T.Suresh Gowda in ITA No.262/Bang/2009 dated 30-12-2009. The contention of the revenue is that the revenue has not accepted the said decision of the ITAT and further appeal u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] has been preferred before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees are individuals who filed their returns of income declaring agricultural income also. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, the AO found that the assessee has sold certain land which was non-agricultural but has not declared any income under the head 'capital gains. Accordingly, he brought the same to tax under the head 'capital gains'.
4. Aggrieved, the assessees preferred appeals before the CIT(A) who found that the said land was initially converted from agricultural land to non-agricultural/residential purpose by the original owners of the land but the land so converted was required to be put to use for non-agricultural purpose within two years from the date of conversion order. But it was not so put to use and therefore, the order was to be treated as null and void automatically. He further observed that in similar case of T.Suresh Gowda, the ITAT has held that it is an agricultural land and only certain portion of the sale consideration is exigible to capital gains tax. Following the said order of the ITA Nos.997 & 998(Bang)/2010 Page 3 of 3 ITAT, the CIT(A) has allowed the assessee's appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue is in appeal before us.
5. As seen from the grounds of appeal itself the revenue is aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) in following the order of the Tribunal in the case of T.Suresh Gowda, as the same has not been accepted by the revenue an appeal has been preferred to the Hon'ble High Court. As the order of the CIT(A) is in consonance with the order of the ITAT in the case of adjoining land holder, we do not see any reason to interfere with the same as long as the order of the Tribunal has not been suspended or stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In view of the same, the revenue's appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th February, 2011.
Sd/- sd/-
(Dr. O.K. Narayanan) (Smt. P.Madhavi Devi)
VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
Eks
Copy to :
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT(A) concerned
4. CIT
5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore
6. Guard file
By Order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore