I.T.O., WARD-1(5), , ALIGARH V. SH. RAVENDRA KUMAR SINGH, ALIGARH

MA 28/AGR/2020

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue against an earlier Tribunal order that provided relief to the assessee, Shri Ravendra Kumar Singh, concerning the valuation of a property for tax purposes. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal had incorrectly stated that the property was not referred for valuation by the AO or the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal's earlier decision was based on the fact that there was no evidence of excess payment over the sale consideration and the property had been valued by the DVO as per the directions of the CIT(A). The Tribunal dismissed the M.A., affirming that there was no mistake in their previous judgment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779301 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: GIVING
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, DB: AGRA (Through Physical / Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.- 28/AGR/2020 Arising Out of ITA No.- 385/AGR/2017 [Assessment Year: 2012-13] ITO, Ward-1(5), Aligarh. VS Shri Ravendra Kumar Singh, HIG-II, Swaran Jayanti Nagar, Ramghat Road, Aligarh. PAN- AXHPS2125C Revenue Assessee Revenue by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Assessee by None Date of Hearing 18.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM: This Miscellaneous Application (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MA’) has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 16.10.2019 in ITA No. 385/Agr/2017. In this M.A., the Revenue is aggrieved by the observation of the Ld. Tribunal that the Tribunal allowed relief to the assessee by recording a wrong fact that the Printed from counselvise.com MA No.-28/Agr/2020 Sh. Ravendra Kumar Singh 2 Revenue did not refer the property for valuation to the DVO, whereas the property was referred for valuation by the AO vide his letter dated 27.09.2016, as per the direction of the Ld. CIT(A), which has been noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in para no. 7.6 of his order. It has been further submitted that the DVO valued the property vide his report dated 28.12.2016 valuing the property of Rs. 30,01,900/- and as per the directions of the Ld. CIT(A), the short term capital gain was recomputed at Rs. 30,01,900/- as against Rs. 52,04,828/- in the order u/s 143(3) /147, dated 22.01.2015, wherein the assessee had shown sale consideration of Rs. 11 lakhs only. In view of these facts, it was submitted that it was apparently clear that the property was got valued from the DVO and hence the requirement of section 50C(2) was fulfilled. Therefore, the observation of the Hon'ble Tribunal that neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) got valued the property from the DVO and hence allowing relief to the assessee, is a mistake apparent from records which is requested to be rectified. 2. In this case, the Tribunal allowed relief to the assessee by giving its findings in para nos. 20 and 21 of its order, which are reproduced as under: Printed from counselvise.com MA No.-28/Agr/2020 Sh. Ravendra Kumar Singh 3 “20. In the present case, it is noted that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Ld. CIT(A) appreciated the contentions raised by the assessee while adopting the stamp duty value as fair market value of the property purchased nor referred the matter to the DVO as was required U/s 50C(2) of the Act. The AO has also not found or as alleged with any corroborative material evidence that the assessee has paid any excess amount over the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. 21. Considering the factual Matrix of the case and binding legal decisions, the findings of ld. the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO by invoking section 50C can not be approved. In our considered opinion, the department cannot be allowed a second inning, by sending the matter back to AO, enabling it to fill the lacunae and shortcomings and putting the assessee virtually to face a re-trial for no fault of him and to again prove before the AO that the sale consideration was the \"fair market value\" of the property sold by him. This would amount to giving a lease of life to an order which on the basis of facts on records is unsustainable in law.” 2.1 From the above findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal did not allow relief to the assessee merely on the ground that the matter was not referred to the DVO as required U/s 50C(2) of the Act, but also took note of the fact that the AO had not found or alleged, with any corroborative material /evidence, that the assessee had paid any excess amount over the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. Similar view has been expressed by the Tribunal in its order in para nos. 6 and 8, which are reproduced as under: Printed from counselvise.com MA No.-28/Agr/2020 Sh. Ravendra Kumar Singh 4 “6. Heard both the parties, perused the records and considered the cases cited before the Bench. In the year under consideration, the appellant had sold an immovable property for a consideration lower than the value determined for stamp purposes. The AO had applied the provisions of section 50C and added the difference of Rs. 25,65,000/- to the total income without bringing any adverse material evidence to indicate that the assessee has received any excess money over and above the sale consideration as shown in the sale deed. 8. In the present case, neither, the AO nor the ld. CIT(A) has made any efforts to crystalize the actual value of sale consideration received by the assessee by way of bringing material documentary evidence on record to establish actual amount of sale consideration over and above the sale value shown in the registered sale deed to establish the unexplained receipt from the property by the assessee. Merely, rejection of the assessee's reply without giving valid reasons can not justify the action of the subordinate authorities.” 2.2 Therefore, the mistake as pointed out in the M.A. will not alter the finding of the Tribunal in deleting the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), because the deletion was not made only on the basis that the property was not referred to the DVO for determining the FMV as per the provisions of Section 50C(2) of the Act, as contended by the Revenue in its M.A, but also due to the fact that corroborative material /evidence, that the assessee had paid any excess amount over the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. 2.3 In view of the above, we are of the considered view that no mistake as apparent from the record has been pointed out by the Printed from counselvise.com MA No.-28/Agr/2020 Sh. Ravendra Kumar Singh 5 Revenue in its M.A., and, therefore, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is not sustainable, and the same is dismissed. 3. In the result, M.A. filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [SUNIL KUMAR SINGH] [BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 13.10.2025. Pooja Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra, Printed from counselvise.com "