Vipul Krishna Ashtekar v. Dy. CIT

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2015 TaxPub(DT) 5351 (Pune-Trib)div class=Section1> Vipul Krishna Ashtekar v. Dy. CIT INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Reassessment--Reason to believePrinciple of consistency and uniformity--The assessee and his family members along with other neighbouring farmers came together with the object of developing their agricultural land into a Township. With the said purpose, various farmers gave their lands for development to 'MTDC' for development of land and, in turn, they entered into an agreement with MTDC. It was pointed out in the course of hearing that there are about 350 farmers who entered into such an agreement. The individual farmers were to share the profits/losses from such development activity jointly along with MTDC in proportion to their landholding. The AO issued notice under section 148 dated 29-3-006 on the ground that the agreement dated 26-3-1999 entered with MTDC had resulted in a capital gain in the hands of assessee chargeable to tax for assessment year 1999-2000. Capital gain was accordingly assessed to tax in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld the order of AO. *Held:* The revenue has not demonstrated any reason in the present cases so as to justify departure of the department from its accepted stand in similarly placed other cases where capital gains in pursuance to agreement with MTDC dated 26-3-1999 had been taxed over the years and not in assessment year 1999-2000. Revenue had departed from its accepted position. There was no justification brought out by the Revenue for such a departure. Therefore, on the principle of uniformity of approach which was required to be adopted by the Revenue in relation to similarly placed assessees as laid down by the Supreme Court, the action of the income-tax authorities in the present case to initiate proceeding under section 147/148 to assess capital gains on the basis of the agreement dated 26-3-1999 with MTDC was not justified. There was no reason to uphold the action of the lower authorities. The action of the lower authorities was set aside not on the merits of the controversy but on the principles of consistency and uniformity which were required to be adopted by the Revenue in the case of similarly placed assessees. Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 147 Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 45 Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 148 *Relied:*Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC). *REFERRED :* FAVOUR : In assessee's favour. A.Y. : 1999-2000 IN THE ITAT PUNE B BENCH SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2015 TaxPub(DT) 5351 (Pune-Trib)div class=Section1>

Vipul Krishna Ashtekar v. Dy. CIT

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Reassessment--Reason to believePrinciple of consistency and uniformity--The assessee and his family members along with other neighbouring farmers came together with the object of developing their agricultural land into a Township. With the said purpose, various farmers gave their lands for development to 'MTDC' for development of land and, in turn, they entered into an agreement with MTDC. It was pointed out in the course of hearing that there are about 350 farmers who entered into such an agreement. The individual farmers were to share the profits/losses from such development activity jointly along with MTDC in proportion to their landholding. The AO issued notice under section 148 dated 29-3-006 on the ground that the agreement dated 26-3-1999 entered with MTDC had resulted in a capital gain in the hands of assessee chargeable to tax for assessment year 1999-2000. Capital gain was accordingly assessed to tax in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld the order of AO. Held: The revenue has not demonstrated any reason in the present cases so as to justify departure of the department from its accepted stand in similarly placed other cases where capital gains in pursuance to agreement with MTDC dated 26-3-1999 had been taxed over the years and not in assessment year 1999-2000. Revenue had departed from its accepted position. There was no justification brought out by the Revenue for such a departure. Therefore, on the principle of uniformity of approach which was required to be adopted by the Revenue in relation to similarly placed assessees as laid down by the Supreme Court, the action of the income-tax authorities in the present case to initiate proceeding under section 147/148 to assess capital gains on the basis of the agreement dated 26-3-1999 with MTDC was not justified. There was no reason to uphold the action of the lower authorities. The action of the lower authorities was set aside not on the merits of the controversy but on the principles of consistency and uniformity which were required to be adopted by the Revenue in the case of similarly placed assessees.

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 147

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 45

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 148

Relied:Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 1999-2000

IN THE ITAT PUNE B BENCH