TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 454
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in drawing adverse inference and not considering that the appellants were never assessed in the past, have not been assessed in the succeeding years, are illiterate rustic agriculturists, ignorant of law and its technicalities and the ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in levying tax and rejecting the appeal. 2. That Shri Bhomaram died on 23.1.2010, the factum of his death was known to the learned Assessing Officer, still he claims to have served the old notice u/s. 148 dated 18.1.2010 on 2.2.2010 after his death. The impugned notice was not served on Shri Sitaram and Shri Lalaram. The action and entire proceedings are without jurisdiction, illegal, invalid and liable to be quashed. 2.1. That the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A) grossly erred in rejecting the jurisdictional issue raised before him and dismissing on the ground that the question of jurisdiction of any AO could not be raised u/s.124(3)(b) of the Act when the question has been raised as to the validity of the impugned proceedings and the impugned notice. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the real issue. 2.2 That the impugned proceedings are illegal, in-valid, unauthori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants being illiterate, rustic agriculturists, unaware of the requirements, the adverse inference drawn is drastic and unsustainable in law. 8.1. That the impugned appellate order has been made in haste, ignoring detailed submissions dated 18.7.2011, in single hearing and by order on the same day i.e. 18.7.2011, without application of mind, without properly appreciating the submissions made orally and with pre-determined mind to reject in a summary manner. 9. That the Assessing Officer grossly erred in computing total income at Rs. 2,12,91,192/- against NIL and the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in dismissing the appeal summarily. 10. That the ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in levying tax as well as interest. 11. That the appellant seeks permission to raise any new ground, or alter, amend or modify on or before or at the time of hearing. 2. The appeal is barred by 1249 days. An application for condonation of delay is filed seeking condonation of delay. In support of the application, an affidavit is also filed by the appellant. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has reiterated the submissions as made in the application. 2.1. On the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... served the old notice u/s. 148 on 2.2.2010 ignoring his death on 23.1.2010. Notice was not served on Shri Sita Ram and Shri Lala Ram. Both the brothers, Shri Sita Ram and Shri Lala Ram are illiterate, rustic agriculturists and simply learnt to put signatures. They were absolutely ignorant of law. (iii) Both the brothers were under the bonafide belief that due compliance is being made through Shri Narendra Goswami and all the necessary information with regard to particulars of sale details, sale consideration, reinvestments etc. are being/have been submitted truly, correctly and fully before the ld. Assessing Officer in the earlier assessment proceedings and subsequently. Full cooperation was duly extended and there was no negligence or any inaction on the part of both sons of late Shri Bhoma Ram. (iv) The Income-tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Jaipur made an assessment order on 30.11.2010 denying the deductions and computing assessed income at Rs. 2,12,91,192/-. He initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act separately for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. (v) Shri Sitaram fell seriously ill and had to undergo treatment with many doctors and hospitals fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cause would be decided on merits after hearing a parties. (3) When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserve to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. (4) There is no presumption that is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (5) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so and onwards. Similar to Para 5.2 to 5.7. The ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments :- State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani & Others (1996) AIR 1623 (SC) Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) Shankarrao vs. Chandrasenkunwar (1987) Supp SCC 338 (SC) Bharat Auto Centre vs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 366 (All.) CIT vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 269 (S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eserved 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 assesses then the assesses 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." The facts are identical in this case. Therefore, taking a consistent view, we hereby condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merit. 3. The first ground in this appeal is against treating the agricultural land as capital asset. 3.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the case of the assessee is that despite having admitted the fact that the land transferred was an agricultural land and no finding is given as to how the land transferred falls within the prescribed limit of Municipality and come within the sweep of the definition of Capital Asset. He submitted that this goes to the very root of the taxability of capital gain. In case the assessee is able to prove that the land falls beyond the prescribed limit of Municipality, in that event ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ict- Jaipur. In case of assessee's brother namely Shri Ram Sahay Sharma in A.Y. 2007-08 by the ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur order dated 25.03.2013 had not made any addition on account of long term capital gain. Further the ld. CIT (A) as well as this Bench also allowed the appeal in case of Smt. Kamla Devi Sharma (supra), who also sold her land at Sanjharia village to M/s. Vatika Ltd. on 16.05.2006 and held that the agricultural land sold by the assessee is not capital asset as envisaged u/s 2(14) of the Act as same was sold to Vatika Ltd. within a short span of time. The other case laws relied by the assessee is also squarely applicable. Therefore, we hold that the land sold by all the assesses are agricultural land and beyond 8 KMs from the municipal limits. Accordingly, we allow this ground of all the appeals." Thus, this ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. Ground No. 2 is with regard to the validity of proceedings under section 148 of the Act on the ground that the old notice under section 148 dated 18.1.2010 was served on 2.2.2010 after the death of Shri Bhoma Ram, who died on 23.1.2010. The ld. Counsel submitted that the entire proceedings w....