9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 170 - AT - Income TaxExemption u/s 54B - cost of acquisition and cost of improvement - AO in this case rejected the assessee s claim and held that in the absence of agreement to sell the rights acquired by provisional booking of the property did not meet the requirements spelt out u/s 54 of the Act i.e. acquisition of new capital asset - HELD THAT - Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ram Gopal 2015 (2) TMI 500 - DELHI HIGH COURT allowed the claim for exemption/deduction u/s 54 of the Act referring to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Gulshan Malik 2014 (3) TMI 474 - DELHI HIGH COURT . We noticed that the Hon ble Delhi High Court observed that the decision of SURAJ LAMP INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 2011 (10) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT is of no consequence because the Hon ble Apex Court had dealt with whether a sale transfer based upon confirming a GPA amounted to sale/conveyance but the Hon ble Apex Court did not consider and had no occasion to deal with section 2(14) and section 2(47) of the Act in the context of a claim of acquisition of rights of property and interest in a capital asset for the purpose of Income tax. The principles of this decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ram Gopal 2015 (2) TMI 500 - DELHI HIGH COURT applying to the facts of the present case, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in allowing the exemption claimed u/s 54B of the Act as claimed by the assessee. Thus, we sustain the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the grounds of Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. 2. Entitlement of the assessee to exemption under Section 54B of the Act. 3. Validity of sale through unregistered sales agreement and GPA. 4. Satisfaction of conditions for exemption under Section 54B. 5. Ownership and possession of land based on unregistered documents. 6. Appropriateness of reliance on CIT vs. Ram Gopal. 7. Consideration of evidence without opportunity for rebuttal by the Assessing Officer. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Ld. CIT(A)'s Order: The Revenue argued that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was "bad in law and not in consonance with the facts of the case." The Tribunal, however, found that the Ld. CIT(A) had thoroughly considered the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee, including the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Ram Gopal, and had correctly allowed the deduction under Section 54B of the Act. 2. Entitlement to Exemption under Section 54B: The core issue was whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sold agricultural land and purchased new agricultural land within the stipulated time, investing the entire sale consideration from the old land into the new land. The Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the exemption based on the evidence provided, including sale agreements, General Power of Attorney (GPA), possession letters, and affidavits. 3. Validity of Sale through Unregistered Sales Agreement and GPA: The Assessing Officer (AO) had denied the exemption, citing the Supreme Court decision in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, which held that transactions through GPA sales or unregistered sales agreements do not convey any title or interest in immovable property. However, the Tribunal observed that the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Ram Gopal had distinguished this Supreme Court decision, stating it did not deal with Section 2(14) and Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act in the context of acquisition of rights in property for tax purposes. 4. Satisfaction of Conditions for Exemption under Section 54B: The AO argued that the conditions for exemption under Section 54B were not satisfied as the property was not registered in the assessee's name in the Revenue records. The Tribunal, however, found that the Ld. CIT(A) had considered the evidence of payment, possession, and the execution of relevant documents, concluding that the assessee had indeed fulfilled the conditions for exemption. 5. Ownership and Possession of Land Based on Unregistered Documents: The AO did not accept the transaction of the assessee purchasing new agricultural land through GPA and unregistered documents. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of possession and payment, and the mutation in Revenue records was not a deterrent for allowing the exemption under Section 54B. 6. Appropriateness of Reliance on CIT vs. Ram Gopal: The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the Delhi High Court decision in CIT vs. Ram Gopal, which considered the Supreme Court's decision in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal agreed with this reliance, noting that the Delhi High Court had distinguished the Supreme Court's decision and had allowed the exemption under similar circumstances. 7. Consideration of Evidence without Opportunity for Rebuttal by AO: The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) considered evidence without giving the AO an opportunity for rebuttal. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had the authority under Section 250(4) to make inquiries and consider additional evidence during appeal proceedings. The assessee had provided the ITR and computation of income for AY 2014-15 of Smt. Sumitra Devi Gupta, which was not considered as additional evidence under Rule 46A but as part of the appellate proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to allow the exemption under Section 54B of the Act, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and concluded that the assessee had met all the conditions for the exemption. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
|
