SHRI ASHFAQUE AHMED, JAIPUR V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

ITA 113/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1457 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANURADHA JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: AASHISH KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Value adopted by valuation officer; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH JES'K LH 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 113/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SHRI ASHFAQUE AHMED, C/O- ASHISH KHANDELWAL & ASSOCIATES, G-2, ARIHANT TOWER-2, OPP.- BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, SANGANERI GATE, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-5 JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABRPA 9053 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AASHISH KHANDELWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : MS. ANURADHA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/03/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/03/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 19/11/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2 014-15 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR AD DITION OF RS. 3,24,800/-. ITA 113/JP/2019 ASHFAQUE AHMED VS. ACIT 2 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED A HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAD E ADDITION BY TAKING VALUATION AS PER THE SUB-REGISTRAR AND THEREBY MADE ADDITION OF RS. 14,04,254/- U/S 56(2)(VII)(B)(II) OF THE ACT AFTER DISREGARDING CONSIDERATIONS DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED. EVEN THO UGH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO ON THE O BJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE DVOS REPORT WAS NOT RECEIVED. ACCO RDINGLY, HE HAS TAKEN THE VALUE SHOWN BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR AS A SAL E CONSIDERATION. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS PENDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE DVO HAS ISSUED VALUATION REPORT VALUING THE PROPERTY AT RS. 58,24, 800/- AS AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 55.00 LACS SHOWN BY THE A SSESSEE. HOWEVER, BY POINTING OUT THE DEFECT IN THE DVO REPORT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I DO NOT FI ND ANY MERIT IN THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CONSIDERING THE STAMP VALUATION AS A GOS PEL TRUTH AND BRUSHING ASIDE THE REPORT OF THE DVO, OBJECTION RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND ALSO OVERLOOKING THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER. FR OM THE RECORD, I FOUND THAT EVEN THE DVO HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY AT RS. 58 ,24,800/- WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY ACQU IRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OCCUPIED BY THE TENANTS WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE PURCHASE PRICE OF ITA 113/JP/2019 ASHFAQUE AHMED VS. ACIT 3 THE PROPERTY. AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, THE DVOS REPORT THERE REMAINS DIFFERENCE OF ONLY. 5.91%. THE HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF GAUTAM (CB) VS. UNION OF INDIA (1993) 199 I TR 530 HAS RECOGNIZED A TOLERANCE LIMIT FOR PRE-EMPTIVE PURCHA SE OF PROPERTY UNDER CHAPTER XX-C AT 15% FOR VARIATIONS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY SO PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OCCUPIED B Y THE TENANTS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE D VO WHILE VALUING THE PROPERTY AND EVEN WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ADVERSE FE ATURE SO POINTED OUT. THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION SH OWN BY THE ASSESSEE VIS A VIS VALUATION MADE BY THE DVO IS MERELY 5.91% . KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I DO NOT F IND ANY JUSTIFICATION EVEN FOR UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,24,800/- WHICH IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 55.0 0 LACS AS AGAINST THE DVO VALUATION OF RS. 58,24,800/-, THEREFORE, THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION SO MADE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH MARCH, 2019 SD/- JES'K LH 'KEKZ ( RAMESH C SHARMA ) YS[KK LNL YS[KK LNL YS[KK LNL YS[KK LNL;@ ;@;@ ;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 20 TH MARCH, 2019 ITA 113/JP/2019 ASHFAQUE AHMED VS. ACIT 4 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANTS- SHRI ASHFAQUE AHMED, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 113/JP/2019) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR