2016 (2) TMI 425 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of long term capital gain on sale of 2 residential houses and agricultural land - Held that - Both the sale deeds have been placed in the paper book. It is further seen that the sale deed dated 14.7.2008 was specifically in respect of sale of farms house including rain water harvesting systems in the instant year. The appellant has also furnished a valuation report dated 1.7.2008 valuing the cost incurred for development work in land/farmhouse at ₹ 1,55,27,000/-. Neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) or learned DR has pointed out any defect in the valuation report furnished by the appellant. In such circumstances, we feel that the CIT(A) was not justified to restrict deduction to the extent of ₹ 77.95 lacs out of the total sum of ₹ 1,23,50,000/- on the ground that sum was paid after 14.7.2005 which was the date of sale deed of the farm house. Thus in our considered opinion the entire cost of deduction of ₹ 1,23,50,000/- be allowed while computing long term capital gain on sale of the agricultural land/farm house by the appellant. Sum incurred towards repayment of the house sold in the instant year - CIT(A) holding denial of deduction has held that no evidence has been brought on record regarding investment of the said land and therefore, claim of deduction to this extent is disallowed - Held that - The appellant in the course of hearing has only referred to statement of affairs which is not a sufficient basis to allow the claim of deduction towards cost of acquisition of the property. There is nothing to support that any expenditure was incurred towards cost of development of house at plot no. 1402, Sector-6, Bahadurgarh in the instant year. Having regard to above, we feel that action of the CIT(A) is in order and claim of the appellant is therefore, rejected. In the result, the grounds raised by the appellant are partly allowed and ground raised by the revenue is rejected. Addition representing agricultural income declared by the appellant and held to be income from undisclosed sources - Held that - It is undisputed that the appellant has not produced documentary evidence in support of agricultural income declared by the appellant. It is further not disputed that the appellant is owner of agricultural land in the instant year. Further, it is also not disputed that in the preceding assessment years, agricultural income had been declared of ₹ 3,14,513/- and having regard to the said position, we find that the finding of the CIT(A) to accept agricultural income at ₹ 6,00,000/- is in order. The learned DR has also not been able to show in any manner how such an acceptance of the claim is excessive. In view of the above position, we uphold order of the CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised both by assessee and revenue. Denial of exemption under section 54B - Held that - As the learned counsel submitted that no opportunity was given either by the Assessing Officer or CIT(A) to furnish such relevant evidence and therefore, prayed that the issue may kindly be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The learned DR did not fairly object to such a prayer made by the appellant, we therefore, feel it appropriate that the issue be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for reconsideration in accordance with law. Needless to state that the appellant would be entitled to lead all such evidence to support claim of exemption under section 54B of the Act and the Assessing Officer shall pass an order after granting necessary opportunity to the appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition under Capital Gains.
2. Jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.
3. Computation of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of agricultural land and residential house.
4. Claim of exemption under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act.
5. Treatment of agricultural income as income from undisclosed sources.
6. Levy of interest under Section 234B.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition under Capital Gains:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 2,34,00,993 out of Rs. 2,81,55,993 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under the head Capital Gains. The AO had determined the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the sale of the house and agricultural land at Rs. 4,44,07,059, not considering the additions claimed by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowed the claim of the assessee except for Rs. 47,55,000. The Tribunal found that the cost incurred in preceding years was duly reflected in the statement of affairs and accepted in the returns of income for those years. Since these returns had acquired finality, the cost had to be allowed as a deduction while computing capital gain. The Tribunal allowed the entire cost of Rs. 1,23,50,000 for the agricultural land/farmhouse and upheld the denial of Rs. 2,00,000 for the residential house due to lack of evidence.

2. Jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax:
The assessee contended that the assessment order was without jurisdiction as the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax was not empowered under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. However, these grounds were not pressed during the hearing and were dismissed.

3. Computation of Long Term Capital Gain on Sale of Agricultural Land and Residential House:
The assessee challenged the computation of LTCG on the sale of agricultural land and residential house. The CIT(A) had restricted the cost of improvement/construction on agricultural land and residential house, leading to higher LTCG. The Tribunal found that the cost incurred in preceding years was reflected in the statement of affairs and allowed the deduction. The Tribunal also allowed the entire cost of Rs. 1,23,50,000 for the agricultural land/farmhouse but upheld the denial of Rs. 2,00,000 for the residential house due to lack of evidence.

4. Claim of Exemption under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee's claim for exemption of Rs. 39,15,450 under Section 54B was denied by the CIT(A) on the grounds that no evidence was provided to show that agricultural operations were carried out on the said land for at least two years prior to the sale. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for reconsideration, allowing the assessee to furnish relevant evidence.

5. Treatment of Agricultural Income as Income from Undisclosed Sources:
The AO treated Rs. 15,50,000 of declared agricultural income as income from undisclosed sources due to lack of evidence. The CIT(A) allowed Rs. 6,40,000 and upheld Rs. 9,10,000 as income from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the assessee had not produced documentary evidence but was the owner of agricultural land.

6. Levy of Interest under Section 234B:
The levy of interest under Section 234B was consequential in nature and was not specifically addressed in the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. The cost incurred in preceding years was allowed as a deduction while computing capital gain, and the issue of exemption under Section 54B was restored to the AO for reconsideration. The treatment of agricultural income and the levy of interest were upheld as per the CIT(A)'s order.

← Previous Next →