TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on receipt of this application by the assessee, the administrative officer of the CIT(Appeals) vide office letter dated 5.12.2016 ,sent a copy of the order to the assessee after which the appeal was filed within stipulated time. The Ld. counsel for assessee, therefore, stated that the delay in filing the appeal could not be attributed to any fault on the part of the assessee but due to the late receipt of the order of the CIT(Appeals). 3. The Ld. DR, on the other hand opposed the condonation of delay application stating that the order was dispatched from the office of the CIT(Appeals) by Speed Post on 17.9.2015 and had not been received back. The Ld. DR drew our attention to the communication received from the office of the CIT(Appeals), Panchkula in this regard, on being asked by the Registry of the I.T.A.T. to intimate the exact date on which the order was served on the assessee. The Ld. DR also drew our attention to the copy of the Speed Post received mentioning the fact of the dispatch of the order on the aforestated date to the assessee which was enclosed alongwith the reply filed by the office of the CIT(Appeals), in response to the request of the Registry in this regard.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase, no advantage can be drawn by the assessee by filing the appeal late, nor any disadvantage is caused to the Revenue if the delay is condoned. In fact there is no vested right with the Revenue that on account of late filing of appeal by the assessee the Revenue is ousted from its settled position. Therefore, being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay. This order was pronounced in open court in the presence of both the parties and hearing of the appeal was thereafter directed to be proceeded with. 6. We shall now proceed to adjudicate the appeal before us. Brief background of the case is that the Assessing Officer had information about sale of half share of land by the assessee in village Jaroda, Yamunanagar for Rs. 7,51,95,313/- to one M/s Jewel Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi on 20.3.2007. Since the land was a capital asset, falling within 8 km. of the municipal limit, the capital gain on such sale was taxable and, therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act for taxing the capital gain earned by the assessee on the impugned transaction. In response to the same, the return was filed by the assessee dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....balance 90% consideration was received on 14.08.2008 i.e. AY 2009-10. 2. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in not allowing the benefit of investments in new agriculture land amounting Rs. 3,08,96,330/- u/s 54B & construction of house amounting Rs. 43,00,000/- u/s 54 F invested subsequent to the receipt of money against sale of agriculture land. 3. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in adopting indexed cost of land valued on the basis of land value on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 7,01,597/-. 4. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and faces in confirming the AO action by not allowing the benefit of improvement cost of land. 5. That authorities below has erred in law and facts in reopening the assessment u/s 148. 9. No arguments vis-a-vis Ground No.5 were made before us. The same is therefore dismissed. 10. Further, Challenging the action of the CIT(Appeals) in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,68,96,060/- made by the Assessing Officer as Long Term Capital Gains earned by the assessee during the impugned year on account of sale of land, in ground No.1, the Ld. counsel for assessee during the course of hearing b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assessing Officer of the entire capital gains in the year of registration of the sale deed. The Ld. counsel for assessee stated that the facts in the present case were identical to that in the case of Rajiv Kumar & Others (supra), Purshottam Kumar & Tejinder Kumar and a chart pointing out identical facts was placed before us as under: No. PARTICULARS Facts of Rajiv Kumar ITA No. 17/CHD/2016 Facts of Tajinder Kumar ITA No.19/CHD/2016 Facts of Purshotam Kumar ITA No.968 & 969/CHD/2014 Facts of Sheo Ram 1. Date of Registration of Sale Deed 20-3-2007 20-3-2007 20-3-2007 20-3-2007 2. Total value of sale consideration 5,50,00,000 5,44,15,625 2,95,28,125 3,75,97,656 3. Date of Receipt of Advance Payment 25-3-2007 15-3-2007 20-3-2007 15-3-07 4. Amount of Receipt of Advance Payment 50,00,000 4946875 2693375 32,67,969 6. Date of Receipt of Final Payment 16-6-2008 15-6-2008 16-6-2008 14-8-2008 7 Amount of Final Payment 5,00,00,000 4,94,68,750 2,68,43,750 3,41,79,688 8 Clause in Sale Deed that in case of cheque not encashed sale deed will be cancelled ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of assessee there is no such fact on record but in fact as per the facts brought out in the assessment order and the CIT(Appeals)'s order, the possession of the land had also been handed over to the buyers as per the sale deed executed. 2) That no evidence had been brought on record by the assessee that the assessee's land was also covered in the civil case which was filed before the Hon'ble High Court wherein direction was given by the Hon'ble High Court, after constituting an SIT on the issue, to the buyers to make payment of the balance amount to the sellers of the land. 13. At this juncture, the Ld. counsel for assessee admitted that factual finding with regard to the assessees land being included and covered in the disputed lands before the High Court, were not available on record but at the same time, contended that the same could be established by the assessee by placing relevant material and evidence on record subject to verification by the department of the same. The Ld. counsel for assessee requested, therefore, that the issue be restored to the Assessing Officer so as to enable the assessee to establish the identity of the facts of the present case with th....