TULSIDAS PUNDLIKRAO SHENDE, Nagpur V. ITO-WARD-2(2), Nagpur

ITA 120/NAG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1804 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA KANE
• Assessee Lawyers: V V SARANJAME
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 50C; 154

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 120/NAG/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 120/NAG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10. TULSIDAS PUNDLIKRAO SHENDE, THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, PLOT NO. 76, NARI ROAD, V/S. WARD - 2(2), NAGPUR. KAPIL NAGAR, NAGPUR, PAN AKBPS5898P. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.V. SARANJAME. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NARENDRA KANE. DATE OF HEARING : 04 - 08 - 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 TH AUGUST, 2015 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. . THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR DATED 30 - 12 - 2013 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING NON APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50(C) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, AND THIS HONOURABLE COURT BE PLEASED TO DELETE THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 2 ITA NO. 120/NAG/2014 2. ON THE FACTS AND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE FOREGOING GROUND, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ORDER UNDER SEC. 154 DATED 28.03.2013 WHICH WAS PRODUCED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 2. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PROPERTY FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF ` .32 LAKHS . MARKET VALUE OF THE SAME WAS ASSESSED AT ` .1,5 3 ,40,000/ - BY STAMP VALUING AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50 C. ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE SAME. THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE DVO. HOWEVER, SINCE THE MATTER WAS GETTING TIME BARRED THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WITHOUT WAI TING FOR THE DVOS ORDER. HOWEVER, HE MENTIONED THAT THE ORDER WILL BE SUBJECT TO RECTIFICATION TO THE EXTENT OF VALUE BEING DETERMINED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER AFTER RECEIPT OF HIS REPORT. VIDE ORDER DATED 28 - 03 - 2013 THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE RECTI FICATION ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE I.T. ACT IN WHICH HE SUBSTITUTED THE VALUE AS PER VALUATION OFFICER AMOUNTING TO ` .81,32,000/ - AND MADE THE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY. 3. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FO UND THAT THERE WAS NO INFIRMITY IN INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 50C REVEALS THAT LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS ALSO AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A VALUE DETERMINED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER IN THIS REGARD WHIC H WAS SUBSTITUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, IN THE SAID PARA 6.1 LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS REFERRED THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD OR FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN REBUTTA L TO THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE VALUATION O F FICER AT ` .1,53,40,000/ - , DESPITE THAT THE DVO CONFERRED ADEQUATE 3 ITA NO. 120/NAG/2014 OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT.. THE ABOVE CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS CONSIDERED THAT THE VALUATION OFFICER HAD ADOPTED THE VA LUE OF ` .1,53,40,000/ - , WHILE THE FACT IS THAT THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS IN FACT ADOPTED THE VALUE AT ` .81,32,000/ - . THE VALUE AS MENTIONED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS THE VALUE AS PER STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. THUS WE FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN TH E SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT EVEN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS HAVE TO BE CONSIST ENT WITH THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ADMITTEDLY THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 WAS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HE HAS CONSIDERED THE SAME ALSO. BUT THERE IS LACK OF APPLICATION OF MIND INASMUCH AS HE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE PROPER FIGURES IN THIS REGARD. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED IF THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH INCLUDING THE ISSUE OF SUB STITUTION OF VALUE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER THE REPORT OF THE DVO. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) SHALL CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. NEEDLESS TO ADD THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4. IN THE R ESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF AUGUST, 2015. (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ( SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. 4 ITA NO. 120/NAG/2014 NAGPUR, DATED: AUGUST, 2015. COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE . 2. REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT, NAGPUR. 5. THE D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER WAKODE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NAGPUR