Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Shankar Lal Saini, Jaipur vs Acit, Jaipur on 22 November, 2016
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 75/JP/2016
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12.
Shri Shankar Lal Saini,
480, hanta Nagar, Near NBC,
Haanpura, Jaipur.
cuke
Vs.
The ACIT, Circle-3,
Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AQGPS 4878 Q
vihykFkhZ@Appellant
izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri O.P. Bhateja (Addl. CIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 02.11.2016.
?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 22/11/2016.
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-I, Jaipur dated 17.11.2015 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under :-
The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 54B at Rs. 1,60,00,000/- and deduction u/ 54F at Rs. 52,00,000/- in computing the capital gain on sale of agricultural land by holding that benefit of investment made before the date of furnishing the return u/ 139(4) is not allowable unless the amount is deposited in capital gain account scheme within the due date of filing of return u/ 139(1).
The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in wrongly relying on the decision of Cochin Bench of ITAT in case of ITO vs. Smt. Rosamma Korah, 45 taxmann.com and incorrectly distinguishing the decision of ITAT Jaipur Bench in case of Nandlal Sharma vs. ITO relied by assessee in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 54B & 54F.
The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that deduction u/s 54F is not available on the expenditure of Rs. 5 lacs incurred on construction of house on agricultural land.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment was finalized under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide order dated 20.03.2014. While framing the assessment, the AO declined the claim of deduction under sections 54B and 54F of the Act on the ground that assessee has not deposited the net sale consideration in the capital gain account. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT (A), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal.
3. Now the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal.
3.1. The only issue in this appeal is whether the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 54B at Rs. 1,60,00,000/- and deduction u/s 54F at Rs. 52,00,000/-. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is no more res integra, has been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in favour of the assessee. He submitted that the ld. CIT (A) has wrongly applied the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of P.N. Khanna vs. CIT, 266 ITR 1 (SC). The ld. Counsel submitted that the judgment was rendered in respect of the penalty imposed under section 276CC for non filing of the return. The ld. Counsel submitted that the ld. CIT (A) is not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee.
3.2. On the contrary, the ld. D/R has strongly supported the orders of the authorities below.
3.3. In rejoinder, the ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions as made in the written synopsis.
3.4. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed facts as recorded by the AO are that the assessee had sold two properties i.e. land situated at Ramsinghpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Khasra Nos. 165 & 166, admeasuring 0.82 Hectare on 28.12.2010 to M/s. Krishna Balram Residency Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur jointly with his brother Shri Sedhu Ram at the consideration of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- and land situated at Ramsinghpura (Dholai), Tehsil Sanganer, Khasra No. 163, admeasuring 0.70 Hectare on 09.02.2011 to M/s. Krishna Balram Residency Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur jointly with his brother Shri Sedhu Ram and shown total consideration of Rs. 2,56,78,800/-. The assessee shown long term capital gain of Rs. 64,61,650/- after claiming deduction u/s 54B at Rs. 1,60,00,000/- and u/s 54F Rs. 52,00,000/-. The AO observed that the assessee has failed to deposit the amount of net sale consideration or capital gain in capital gain account before the due date of filing of return i.e. 31.07.2011. It was observed that the assessee claimed that the entire sale consideration was deposited in the Nationalized Bank as well as in capital gain account. However, no documentary evidence was submitted to the AO. Therefore, the AO declined the claim of deduction under section 54F and similarly the claim u/s 54F of the Act.
3.5. It is contended by the assessee that since the investment is made before the due date of filing of return under section 139(4) of the Act and also before the date of filing of return on 21.02.2013, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54B & 54F even if he has not deposited the amount in capital gain account. In support of his contention, ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench rendered in the case of Nandlal Sharma vs. ITO (2015) 122 DTR 404 (JPR)(Trib.), Ashok Kapasiwala vs. ITO (2015) 45 CCH 407 (Ah.)(Trib.) and the judgments of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Jagtar Singh Chawla (2013) 87 DTR 217 (P&H)(HC), CIT vs. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 64 DTR 333 (P&H)(HC) and on the judgments of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fathima Bai vs. ITO (2009) 32 DTR 243 (Kar.)(HC) and in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Vrinda P. Issac (2011) 64 DTR 376 (Kar.)(HC) and also the decision of Coordinate Bench rendered in the case of Nipun Mehrotra vs. ACIT (2008) 110 ITD 520 (Bang.)(Trib.).
3.6. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal while deciding the identical issue in the case of Nand Lal Sharma vs. ITO (supra) has taken into consideration the various judgments of Hon'ble High Courts referred above. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal (supra), we allow the claim of the assessee. The order of ld. CIT (A) is set aside.
4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22/11/2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼foØe flag ;kno½ ( dqy Hkkjr)
(VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL BHARAT )
ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Jaipur
Dated:- 22/11/2016.
Das/
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf"kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant- Shri Shankar Lal Saini, Jaiur.
2. The Respondent-The ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur.
3. The CIT(A).
4. The CIT,
5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. Guard File (ITA No. 75/JP/2016)
vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar
5
ITA No. 75/JP/2016
Shri hanker Lal Saini.