9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 2052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dt. 13/10/2018 of Ld. CIT(A), Panchkula. 2. The Registry has pointed out that the appeal of the assessee is delayed by 68 days. The assessee submitted an application for condonation of delay stating therein as under: On 12/11/2016 I received the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Panchkula in my case for assessment year 2007-08. Being aggrieved by the said order I requested my Chartered Accountants Messrs Amar Jeet and Pankaj Associates, Chartered Accountants, to prefer an appeal to the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal. After receiving the required documents well in time they undertook to do the needful but due to the rush of work of filing Returns and due to demonetaisation the said appeal was delayed. My affidavit detailing the aforesaid facts and These may kindly be placed before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal for condonation of the short delay in submission of the appeal. In support of the above the assessee also filed an affidavit attested by the Notary dt. 14/03/2017 stating therein as under: I, Jhanda Singh S/o Anup Singh, PAN - CCKPS3117G, resident of Vill - Ratauli, Yamuna Nagar hereby solemnly affirm a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the assessee is an illiterate, old person of about 85 yrs and was not knowing any legal formality to be completed. 4. The Ld. Sr. DR opposed the condonation application filed by the assessee. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I am of the view that there was a reasonable cause in filing appeal belated, therefore the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 6. In the present appeal assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the order of the Honbl'e CIT Appeals, Panchkula is wrong, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the Honbl'e CIT Appeals , Panchkula is wrong in making addition of Rs. 25,51,176/-u/s 143(3)/147 The Income Tax Act. 1961 4. The appellant reserves a right to add . amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 5. The appellant prays that the appeal may very kindly be allowed in total. From the above grounds it is gathered that the grievance of the assessee relates to the sustenance of addition of Rs. 25,51,176/-. 7. Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer on the basis of information observed that the assesee along with S/Sh Dharam Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered on 18/07/2006. Hence the condition for claiming the exemption u/s 54B is complied. Therefore the exemption u/s 54B in respect of agriculture land purchased on 18/02/2006 was claimed by us. 4. Regarding basis of taking FMV of the agriculture land sold we have referred the valuation report of Income Tax Approved valuer. The said valuer is technically and professionally competent to decide the Fair market Value of the said agriculture land. He has applied the reasonable means and resources available to make the fair market value. If there is any documentary evidence available regarding the value then there was no need to approach the approved valuer. The need of approved valuer is only in the case of dispute in value. Hence the approved valuer is competent to decide the FMV of the said land and the report of the same is relied upon. 5. Regarding documentary evidence for the construction of residential house we submit that the illiterate agriculturists were not maintaining any books of accounts and they were not aware that the bills and invoices may be required in future. They were living in kuccha houses and after sale of their agriculture land they have constructed n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons. Sale consideration of the land measuring 28 kanal 2 marla Rs. 1,18,75,763/- 28 kanal 2 marla (562) marla Indexed cost price of the land measuring 28 kanal 2 marla as on 01.04.1981 Rs. 3,60,503/- Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 1,15,15,260/- Assessee s share in the long term capital gain (201 marla) Rs. 41,18,447/- Less: Exemption u/s 54 F Rs. 11,41,404/- Taxable long term capital gain Rs. 29,77,043/- 9. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that his share in the sale of inherited agricultural land held jointly with his two brothers was 35.76%. It was further submitted that the assessee claimed cost of acquisition of his share on the basis of Fair Market Value (FMV) reported by the independent valuer M/s Aggarwal Associates duly approved by Income Tax Department but the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer referred to valuation for cost of construction to the Departmental Valuation Officer who provided a detailed report and valued the cost of construction at Rs. 11,41,404/-, he therefore held that the AO was justified in allowing the exemption under section 54F of the Act for Rs. 11,41,404/-. 12. Now the assessee is in appeal. 13. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the agricultural land sold by the assesse was a property of HUF and the agricultural land was also purchased for the HUF in the name of son of the assessee who were the coparceners of the HUF, therefore, the land purchased for HUF from the sale proceeds of ancestral agricultural land belonging to the HUF was exempted under section 54B of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in denying the exemption to the assessee. It was also stated that this issue is covered vide order dt. 07/09/2018 of Chandigarh D.B. Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Dalbir Singh, Vill- Chhajumajra, Kharar Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Mohali in ITA No. 313/Chd/2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14, (copy of the said order was furnished which is placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
