TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1,95,313/-. Such Sale Deed was executed on 20.03.2007. The land was sold to M/s Jewel Project Pvt. Ltd. According to the AO, it is a land which is situated within 8 kms of Municipal Limit, hence he recorded the reasons and issued notice under Section 148 dated 13.09.2012. The AO has thereafter passed an assessment order on 30.03.2014 whereby LTCG liability was determined in the hands of the assessee. Such gain was determined at Rs. 3,68,96,060/. 3. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) and ultimately it travelled upto the Tribunal vide ITA No. 364/CHD/2017. The Tribunal has set aside the issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication vide its order dated 09.04.2018. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that this appeal has its peculiar facts. Though Sale Deed was executed but sale consideration was given to the assessee only 10% of the total sale consideration. In other words, since assessee has a half share in the total sale consideration in his hand, the total consideration was Rs. 3,75,97,657/- (50% of Rs. 7,51,95,313/-). 10% of the above was paid to the assessee at Rs. 34,17,969/-. Rest of the amount was p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is complete judgement of the Tribunal which reads as under : "The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 22.3.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)']. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming an addition of Rs. 1,30,33,870/- made by AO as long term capital gain on sale of agriculture land by holding the transfer of land in the year under consideration despite the fact that only 10% of the sale consideration was received during the year, and balance 90% consideration was received on 30.06.2008 i.e. AY 2009-10. 2. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming the actions of the AO of not allowing the benefit 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 1-4-198....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act. However, the said claim of the assessee was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) observing that the immovable property was purchased by the assessee beyond the due date of filing of the Income Tax return. The assessee had not furnished any evidence with regard to the deposit of sale proceeds in the Capital Gains account scheme. Even the assessee had not filed Income tax return for the assessment year 2008-09. It was further observed that the said claim of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act was not made in the return of income, therefore, the said claim was not tenable in appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Being aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties and also have gone through the record. 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 Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2016 and which decision was subsequently followed in the case of Sh. Purshottam Kumar, Smt. Payal Kumari and Sh. Parveen Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Yamunanagar in ITA No. 968 to 971/Chd/2014 & 1185/Chd/2012 dated 17-08-16. Copies of both the orders were placed before us. Drawing our attention to the order passed in the case of Rajiv Kumar (supra), Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that in the said case also the facts were identical with that of the assessee wherein the land was acquired by builders making only part payment of around 10% of the entire consideration and promising to pay the balance vide undated cheque and getting the sale deed registered in their favour. It was pointed out that in the said case it was brought to the notice of the Bench that the builders had tried to dupe innocent agriculturists in this manner by acquiring their lands by making meager payment of the aggregate sale 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 con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....H HC matter was referred to SP Ynr and further in CWP 1908 of 2009 a SIT was formed under ADGP Crime 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. Yes No but petition filed by Tajinder Kumar in Criminal Misc. No. 36372-M decided on 31-5-07 by P&H HC matter was referred to SP Ynr and further in CWP 1908 of 2009 a SIT was formed under ADGP Crime Branch to cover all Farmers with a direction to the 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. No but petition filed by Tajinder Kumar in Criminal Misc. No. 36372-M decided on 31-5- 07 by P&H HC matter was referred to SP Ynr and further in CWP 1908 of 2009 a SIT was formed under ADGP Crime 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 Buyer 31-3-2007 31-3-2017 31-3-2017 31-3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on receipt of complete consideration, the Ld. counsel for assessee stated that no such affidavit was filed in the case of Parshotam Kumar which was also an identical case decided on the lines of Rajiv Kumar(supra) following the said decision. 14. The Ld. DR did not object to the request of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 15. Considering the above, in the interest of justice, we restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of enabling the assessee to establish the identity of the facts of the present case with that in the case of Rajiv Kumar(supra) and Purshotam Kumar (supra) and direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee in this regard and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. This ground of appeal is, therefore, allowed for statistical purposes. 16. In 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impossible in the given circumstances as the assessee could not have expected to deposit of sale proceeds in the Capital gains account which, in fact, had not been actually received by the assessee. Under the circumstances, if the assessee upon receipt of the major part of the sale proceeds has invested the same for the purchase of agricultural land, as contended, the assessee, in our view, would be eligible for grant of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act. With the above observations, the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, as directed above. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22.10.2020." 6. On the basis of above judgement, assessee has made a comparative table in his synopsis and placed before us. We find that consistently Tribunal has accepted the stand of the farmers that in the year of Sale Agreement, capital gain is not assessable in the hands of these assessees because the developer has committed a fraud with them and actually transfer could not be construed as materialized in assessment year 2007-08. These farmers have received the sale considerat....