TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 200
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the tune of Rs. 12,94,999/- only." Grounds of ITA of the year 2014 "1 Under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) has erred seriously is sustaining the penalty against all the assessees of all the appeals of Rs. 18,45,465/-, Rs. 18,25,623/-, Rs. 18,45,887/-, Rs. 18,35,687/- and Rs. 18,28,290/- levied by the ld. A.O. U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 2. Assessees are different in each case. In all the cases, the assessees' appeals are against sustaining addition on account of long term capital gain on sale of land at Rs. 81,75,583/- without appreciating the land sold by the appellant was an agricultural land in terms of Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The ld Assessing Officer observed that the department had received information from bank that the assessees had sold his land to M/s Vatika Ltd. on 31/5/2006 for sale consideration of Rs. 5,72,48,520/-. The notice U/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to all the assessees to file their returns of income for A.Y. 2007-08 by 20/09/2007 but no compliance was made by the assessees. Assessees namely in case of Sita Ram Sharma and Madan Lal Sharma filed their return of income with ITO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n @ 4312.56 per bigha. Finally long term capital gain was calculated at Rs. 94,70,582/-. The assessee also claimed deduction U/s 54B and 54F of the Act, which was considered by the Assessing Officer on page 5 of the assessment order. The ld Assessing Officer further held that deduction claimed by the assessee U/s 54B at Rs. 9,41,733/- for purchase of land measuring 20 bighas and 18 biswa with all his brothers at village Kankrala, Tehsil- Mojamadabad, district- Jaipur on simple agreement without any registered deed and also no evidence of payment of amount to the seller were found to the Assessing Officer without any basis. The Assessing Officer also has not considered these agreements to sale on the basis of discrepancy pointed out in paragraphs 6.3 to 6.6 on page 7 of the assessment order. Similar findings were given by the Assessing Officer on not allowing deduction U/s 54F of the Act. Thus, he allowed exemption U/s 54B and 54F of the Act on Rs. 12,94,999/- in each case. Net long term capital gain was assessed at Rs. 81,75,583/- in each case. 3. Being aggrieved by the orders of the learned Assessing Officer, the assessees carried the matter before the learned CIT(A), who had all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as long term capital gain on agricultural land. The agricultural land situated at village Sanjharia jointly owned by all six brothers, which was sold to M/s Vatika Limited. The Hon'ble Bench in case of Smt. Kamla Devi Sharma in ITA No. 526/JP/2011 vide order dated 28/08/2014 and in case of Dr. Shubha Tripathi in ITA No. 1129/JP/2011 order dated 24/05/2013 decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. The ld CIT(A)'s order was not communicated by the then advocate and repercussion of not filing appeal against the order of CIT(A)'s order dated 24/12/2010 could not be realized being illiterate agriculturists. It is fact that this land is not capital assets as envisages in Section 2(14) of the Act being beyond 8 km of the municipal limits. The ld AR further relied upon the following decisions on condonation of delay: (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katji (167 ITR 471): (ii) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (1979) 118 ITR 326: (iii) N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123: Therefore, he prayed to condone the delay and appeal filed by the assessees are allowed to be heard on merit. 5. At the outset, the Ld. DR vehementl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Katiji (supra) that substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. In this case also, it is a fact that appeal filed by the appellants belated for years if this Bench has not condoned the delay of the assessees then the assessees would not get justice and which is against the technical objections to file the appeal belatedly. In the interest of substantial justice, we feel that delay should be condoned and the assessee is allowed to be heard on merit. 7. Now coming on merit of the case, the impugned land sold by these assessees bearing khasra No. 500/1239, 532, 432/1166, 533, 542, 543, 545, 546 and 548 in joint name of all these brothers in village Sanjharia, post Thikariya, Tehsil Sanganer being agricultural land to M/s Vatika Ltd. for Rs. 5,72,48,520/- on 21/5/2006. The assessees have 1/6th share of total consideration of Rs. 5,72,48,520/- at Rs. 95,41,420/-. The AR of the assessees submitted that land sold is outside the municipal limit and is more than 8 km. It is argued that in case of Smt. Kamla Devi Sharma, who also sold her land of Sanjharia village to M/s Vatika Ltd. on 16/05/2006....