ITO, Ludhiana V. Smt. Kirpal Kaur Narhan, Ludhiana

ITA 1212/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51573 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK AGGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JAI SHREE SHARMA
• Keywords: Fair market value; Valuation report

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHE B CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1211 /CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2005-06 PAN: INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH. BALWANT SINGH, WARD VII(1), LUDHIANA. CHANDER NAGAR, LUDHIANA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.1212 /CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2005-06 PAN: INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SMT KIRPAL KAUR, WARD VII(1), LUDHIANA. CHANDER NAGAR, LUDHIANA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. DEEPAK AGGARWAL RESPONDENT BY: SMT. JAISHREE SHARMA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 17.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:24.11.2011 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA, EACH DATED 12. 08.2010, PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO IN SHORT THE ACT), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. AS THE ISSUE I NVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS COMMON, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND AR E BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE . 2. THE COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEALS RAISED BY THE ASS ESSES IN BOTH THE APPEALS, READ AS UNDER: 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA, HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDI TION MADE ON ACCOUNT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.7,30,202/-. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), LUDHIANA BE SE T ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. RESROTED. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE IT IS FINALLY DISPOSED OFF. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS IN BOTH THE CASES ARE THAT THE ASSESSEES COMPUTED THEIR 1/4 TH SHARE ON THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ALAONGWITH OTHER CO-OWNERS AT RS.19,58,827/-. THE ASSESSEES SOLD 115 626 SQ. YARDS OF LAND FOR A TOTAL SUM OF RS.3,34,46,071/- DURING THE YEAR CON SIDERATION. THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEES AS ON 1.4.1981 @ RS.74.38 PER SQ. YD. AND FILED A COPY OF VALUATION REPORT FROM A REGISTERED VALUER. THE A.O. REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE HALQA PATWARI, WHO REPORTED THE COST AT RS.74/- PER SQ. YD. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF SPECIFIC KHASRA. THE HALQA PATWARI REPORTED THE FM V TO THOSE KHASRA NOS. AT RS.55/- PER SQ. YD. AND THE SAME VALUED WAS ADOP TED FOR COMPUTING LTCG OF RS.7,30,202/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO ALLOWED THE APPEA LS BY THE ASSESSEES WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE A.O. TO CONSIDER FAIR MA RKET VALUE AT RS.74.38 PER SQ. YD INSTEAD OF RS.55.50 PER SQ. YD AND RECOMPUTE D THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ACCORDINGLY. NOW, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED WIT H THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. A PERUSAL O F THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF CHART IN RESPECT OF SMT. K IRPAL KAUR & SH. BALBIR SINGH DEMONSTRATE THAT THE LD. CIT(A), UPHELD THE RATE AT RS.74.38 PER SQ. YARD AS AGAINST APPLIED BY THE A.O. AT RS.55/- PER SQ. YARD. DURING THE PRECEDING YEARS, THE REVENUE HAS NOT FILED APPEALS IN RESPECT OF THE RATE UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT RS.74.38 PER SQ. YARD I N BOTH THE CASES. THE 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS 200 5-06, ON THE SAME ISSUED. THE LD. CIT(A), VIDE ORDER DATED 12.08.2010 IN RES PECT OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES, DIRECTED THE A.O. TO CONSIDER THE FAIR M ARKET VALUE AT RS.74.38 PER SQ. YARD INSTEAD OF RS.55/- PER SQ. YARD AND RECOM PUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), ARE SIMILAR I N BOTH THE CASES. ACCORDINGLY, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REP RODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER APPRECIATION. 8. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD, ASSESS MENT ORDER OF THE A.O. AND CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANTS COUNSEL. THI S IS COMMON POINT PERTAINING TO THE ONE OF THE CO-OWNER OF THE SAME L AND SMT. KULWANT KAUR WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED BY MY PREDECESSOR WHO H AS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH THIS ISSUE VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 20.08.2009 I N APPEAL NO.11/SA/CIT(A)-II/LDH/08-09. SINCE THIS IS AN IDEN TICAL ISSUE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING MY PREDECESSORS ORDER. I F IND MYSELF IN AGREEMENT WITH HIS VIEWS. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO C ONSIDER FAIR MARKET VALUE AT RS.74.38 PER SQ. YARD INSTEAD OF RS .55.00 PER SQ. YARD AND RECOMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ACCORDING LY. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AND ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH HIS FINDINGS, IN VIEW OF THE ACCEPTA NCE OF THE SAME BY THE REVENUE IN EARLIER YEARS IN RESPECT OF SMT. KULWAN T KAUR, ONE OF THE CO- OWNERS. AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRES ENT ASSESSEES ARE SIMILAR, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY T O MAINTAIN THE CONSISTENCY. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLO WED. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24TH TH NOV., 2011. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 24TH TH NOVEMBER, 2011 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, CHANDIGARH. 4