Vimal Khurana, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

CO 453/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8105 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SYAMAL DUTT
• Assessee Lawyers: S P NIGAM
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5133/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(2), NEW DELHI. VS. SHRI VIMAL KHURANA, C/O KHURANA CALENDAR CO., 2685, ROSHAN PURA, NAI SARAK, DELHI 110 006. PAN : ABCPK0113D. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CROSS OBJECTION NO.453/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI VIMAL KHURANA, C/O KHURANA CALENDAR CO., 2685, ROSHAN PURA, NAI SARAK, DELHI 110 006. PAN : ABCPK0113D. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(2), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI SYAMAL DUTT, SR.DR. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.P.NIGAM, ADVOCATE. 2 ITA-5133/D/2012 & C.O.-453/D/2012 ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JM : THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 4 JULY, 2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NEW DELHI AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PREFERRED CROSS-OBJECTION. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVE NUE IS THAT WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,11,045/- INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF TH E ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS IN SUPPORT TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO THE OBSERVATION MADE A T PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY SUBMITTING THAT THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF REPEATEDLY ASKING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONT ENDED THAT NO SALE DEED WAS EFFECTED, THEREFORE, SECTION 50C OF THE ACT I S NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED T HAT THERE WAS NO REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE REPLY DATED 14 OCTOBER, 2011 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN NUTSHELL, THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS DEFENDED. 3 ITA-5133/D/2012 & C.O.-453/D/2012 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DE CLARED INCOME OF RS.60,31,350/- WHICH WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSEE F ILED THE NECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT/VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSEE SOLD THREE PROPERTIES AND CALCULATED TH E CAPITAL GAIN AS PER THE DETAILS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(1) BY TAKING THE CIRCLE RATE FOR STAMP VALUATION PURPOSES. FROM THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ITSELF, THE ASSESSEE CH ALLENGED INVOCATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C BY CLAIMING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE MORE THAN THE SALE CONSIDERATION AND THE PROPERTIES WERE SOLD THROUGH AGREEMENT TO SELL OR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY. THE WORD ASSESSABLE WAS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT (NO.2) 2009 W.E.F. 1.1 0.2009 TO COVER THE TRANSACTION OF SALE FOR VALUATION PURPOSES. THE DOCUMENTS WE RE NOT REGISTERED WITH THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSING OF FICER INVOKED THE DEEMING PROVISION OF SECTION 50C FOR THE PROPERTY NO.1 & 2 AND MA DE THE ADDITION. FOR THE THIRD PROPERTY, THE DEEMING PROVISION OF SE CTION 50C(1) OF THE ACT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) . THE FACT REMAI NS THAT THERE WAS NO REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTAL ITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFE RE WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THEREFORE, IT IS UPHELD. 4 ITA-5133/D/2012 & C.O.-453/D/2012 4. SO FAR AS THE CROSS-OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, I T WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT IT IS IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGN ED ORDER. SINCE WE HAVE UPHELD THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THEREFORE, THE CROSS-OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS REMAINED FOR ACADEMIC INTEREST ONLY AND THUS HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS-OBJE CTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED AS BEING INFRUCTUOUS. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.C.MEENA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 07.12.2012 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(2), NEW DELHI. 2. RESPONDENT : SHRI VIMAL KHURANA, C/O KHURANA CALENDAR CO., 2685, ROSHAN PURA, NAI SARAK, DELHI 110 006. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR