Smt. Jasbir Kaur, Ludhiana V. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

CO 4/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6853 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SHREE SHARMA
• Keywords: Fair market value

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1194/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ACIT- C-VI, V SMT. JASVIR KAUR, LUDHIANA. 53-B, RAJGURU NAGAR, LUDHIANA. PAN: AIKPK-6651P & CO NO.4/CHD/2012 IN ITA NO. 1194/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SMT. JASVIR KAUR, V ADDL.CIT, C-VI, 53-B, RAJGURU NAGAR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. & ITA NO. 1195/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ACIT- C-VI, V SHRI DAVINDER SINGH, LUDHIANA. 54-B, RAJGURU NAGAR, LUDHIANA. PAN: AUOPS-8408C & CO NO.5/CHD/2012 IN ITA NO. 1195/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI DAVINDER SINGH, V ADDL.CIT, C-VI, 54-B, RAJGURU NAGAR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. & ITA NO. 1196/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ACIT- C-VI, V SHRI BALBIR SINGH, LUDHIANA. 49-B, RAJGURU NAGAR, LUDHIANA. PAN: ABFPS-5114B & CO NO.6/CHD/2012 IN ITA NO. 1196/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI BALBIR SINGH, V ADDL.CIT, C-VI, 49-B, RAJGURU NAGAR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. 2 & ITA NO. 1197/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ACIT- C-VI, V SMT. HARMINDER KAUR LUDHIANA. 49-B, RAJGURU NAGAR, LUDHIANA. PAN: AAAPK-9582L & CO NO.7/CHD/2012 IN ITA NO. 1197/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SMT. HARMINDER KAUR V ADDL.CIT, C-VI, 49-B, RAJGURU NAGAR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. JAISHREE SHARMA DATE OF HEARING : 25.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.01.2012 ORDER PER BENCH THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS. 1194 TO 1197/CHD/2011 IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS APPELLANTS, RAISED SINGLE AND ID ENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL INDICATING THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ADOPT FMV AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS. 235/- PER SQ.YD. IN PLACE OF RS.15/- ADOPTED BY THE AO. 2. IN CROSS OBJECTIONS, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE APPEL LANT BEARING NOS. CO 4 TO 7/CHD/2012 HAS RAISED IDENTICA L GROUND OF APPEAL, IN ALL THESE COS, CONTENDING THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ADOPT FMV OF THE LAND IN QUESTION AS ON 1.4.1981 @ 235/- PER SQ.YD. IN PLACE OF RS.300/- PER SQ.YD. CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER OF THE HALKA PATWAR I. IN 3 VIEW OF THE ISSUES AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THESE APPEALS AND COS BEING IDENTICAL, THE APPEALS AS ALS O COS ARE DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF SINGLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. HOWEVER, FOR THE ILLUSTRATION PURPOSE, THE GROUN D OF APPEAL OF ITA 1194/CHD/2011 AND CO NO. 4/CHD/2012 IN THE CASE OF SMT.JASVIR KAUR ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDE R : ITA NO.1194/CHD/2011 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A)-II LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING T HE AO TO ADOPT FMV AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS.235/- PER SQ.YD. IN PLACE OF RS.15/- ADOPTED BY THE AO. CO NO.4/CHD/2012 THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A)-II LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ADOPT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION AS ON 1.4.1981 @ RS.235/- PER SQ.YD. IN PLACE OF RS.300/- PER SQ.YD. CLAIMED BY T HE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF REGISTERED VALUER REPORT AND OF THE REPORT OF THE HALKA PATWARI. 4. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS, LD. 'DR' RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, WHEREAS THE LD. 'AR' SUPPORTED HIS CASE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE REPOR T OF THE REGISTERED GOVT. VALUER, REPORT OF THE HALKA PATWAR I AS ALSO THE DECISION OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF SMT. BALJINDER KAUR. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE RELEVANT RECORDS IN THE MATTER. THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THE FINDINGS IN PARA 12 OF THE ORDER 4 DATED 28.10.2011 PASSED BY HIM THAT THE AO FAILED T O BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DISAPPROVE THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER AND THE REPORT OF THE HALPA PATWA RI AND BEING REVENUE OFFICER. THE AO MERELY PLACED RELIANC E UPON CERTAIN COMPARABLE INSTANCES, ON THE BASIS OF THE R EPORT OF THE INCOME TAX INSPECTOR, WHICH HAD BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A), FURTHER, OBS ERVED THAT THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO MEET THE REQUIREME NT OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT, IN THE CONTEXT OF LOCATION, FRONTAGE AND OTHER DISTINCTIVE PARTICULARS OF SALE INSTANCES , AS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING DETAILED MAP REGARDI NG THE LOCATION OF THE LAND PREPARED BY THE GOVERNMENT VAL UER. THE CIT(A), HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH, DISCUSSED EARLIER WHEREBY SUCH IS SUE WAS ADJUDICATED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSEE HAD ALSO PLACED RELIANCE, ON COMPARABLE CASES OF SA LE OF LAND BY CITING VASAKA NO. 586 DATED 24.4.1981, ON T HE PLEA THAT LOCATION OF THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT WAS MUCH BETTER THAN THE LOCATION OF THE LAND, IN THE C ASE OF SMT.BALJINDER KAUR. THE LD. CIT(A), FURTHER HIGHLI GHTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE D ECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT V TRILOK CHAND 265 ITR 286. THUS, HAVING CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIO NS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT, LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO, TO ADOPT RATE OF RS.235/- PER SQ.YD., AS ON 1.4.198 1 AS FMV OF THE LAND SOLD DURING THE YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS. 5 6. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL DISCUSSIONS AND ALSO THE CASE LAWS DISCUSSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO DISLODGE THE CREDIBLE AND CORROBORATIVE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSU E IN QUESTION. HAVING REGARD TO THE ENTIRETY OF THE FAC T-SITUATION AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE WOULD BE SERVED IF THE FMV OF THE LAND IS TAKEN, AT RS.250/- PER SQ.YD AS ON 1.4.1981. ACCORDINGLY, THE CO OF THE A SSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. FURTHER, HAVING REGARD TO THE DETAILED FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A), IN PARA 12 OF THE APPELLATE ORDE R, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE IN SUCH FIN DINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A), EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT AS ADJUDICA TED, WHILE DECIDING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE CO. THEREFORE, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE D ISMISSED AND ALL THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THERET O ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH JAN.,2012. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (MEH AR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED: 25 TH JAN.,2012. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH