TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of investments in new agriculture land amounting Rs. 1,16,49,865/- u/s 54B invested subsequent to the receipt of money against sale of agriculture land. 3. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming the actions of the AO of adopting indexed cost of land acquisition of the land as of 1-4-1981 at Rs. 2,63,415/-. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the actions of the AO in reopening the assessment u/s. 148. 5. That Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or to substitute the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of case. 3. Ground No. 4 : At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that he does not press ground No. 4 of the appeal, Ground No. 4 of the appeal is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. 4. Ground Nos. 1 to 3: Brief facts relating to the issue are that the Assessing Officer observed that as per information available with his office, the assessee had sold land measuring 54 Kanal 13 Marla to M/s. Swarg Sukh Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs. 3,75,71,875/- on 4.4.2007 and land measuring 13 Kanal 10 Marla to M/s. Amit Jain ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecord. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal dated 9.4.2018 in the case of 'Shri Sheo Ram, Jagadhari vs ITO' ITA No. 364/Chd/2017, wherein, in identical circumstances, the Tribunal considering the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of 'Tejinder Kumar and another vs State of Haryana and others' CWP No. 1908 of 2009 decided on 5.2.2009 and further considering the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of 'Rajiv Kumar vs ITO' in ITA No. 17/Chd/2016 order dated 29.6.2016 observed that in identical facts and circumstances in the case of other persons also, the sellers/farmers who had sold the land to the purchasers, as named above, had received only part payment of 10% of the entire consideration in the financial year 2007-08 and the remaining consideration was withheld by the builder. The sellers so duped by the builder, had approached the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 5.2.2009 (supra) had ordered an investigation into the matter and after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e consideration, promising to pay the balance in future, which in fact was never paid to the agriculturists. It was pointed out that the agriculturists on being so duped had filed case before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court who had ordered an investigation in the matter and after considering the report of the investigator had directed the Builders to make payment of the balance amount to the agriculturists, which was paid and thus realized by the assessee only in the succeeding year. It was pointed out to the Bench in the said case that in the year when the sale deed was registered the intention of the buyers was clearly not to make payment of the entire agreed amount. It was also pointed out that it was agreed to handover the possession only when the complete payment was made to the sellers on failure of which the sale deed would be cancelled. The Ld. counsel for assessee pointed out from the order that taking note of these averments made before it and considering the evidences placed before it substantiating the stated facts, the I.T.A.T. held that the transfer could not be said to have taken place in the impugned year but only when the final payment was received by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Branch to cover all farmers with a direction to the Collector by Court to prevent third party rights on land or dispossession of farmers to whom full sale consideration has not been paid. 10 Date of Mutation of Land in favour of 31-3-2007 31-3-2017 31-3-2017 31-3-2017 Buyer 11 Date of Handing over of Possession to buyer Company as evident from P&H HC order in CWP 1908 of 2009 dated 5-2-2009 16-6-2008 15-6-2008 16-6-2008 14-8-2008 11. The Ld. counsel for assessee, therefore, stated that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee in view of the aforesaid judgment of the I.T.A.T in the case of Rajiv Kumar(supra) & Purshottam Kumar(supra). 12. The Ld. DR per contra, however, pointed out the following distinguishing facts in the present case with that in the case of Rajiv Kumar (supra): 1) In the case of Rajiv Kumar (supra), on the day the sale deed was registered i.e. 20.3.2007, the buyers had executed an affidavit which was duly attested by the Executive Magistrate, Jagadhri in which the buyers had specifically affirmed that the sale deed of the land had be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n view of the restoration of ground of charging of entire capital gain to tax in the impugned year to the Assessing Officer, we find that the remaining grounds i.e. Ground No. 2 to 4, with regard to the claim of exemption u/s. 54B & 54F of the Act, considering fair market value of property and relating to grant of benefit of cost of improvement of land, cannot be adjudicated at this juncture. These issues are, therefore, also restored to the Assessing Officer to be adjudicated upon afresh after deciding the main issue in the present appeal as per our directions with regard to ground No. 1 raised by the assessee. The grounds of appeal Nos. 2 to 4 are also, therefore, allowed for statistical purposes. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes." 9. The Ld. DR has also submitted that the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the facts and that if facts of this case are identical to that of the case of Shri Rajiv Kumar (supra), the matter be decided as per the findings arrived at in the case of Shri Rajiv Kumar (supra). 10. Considering the rival submissions of both the parties, the issue ....