Shri Jayeshbhai G. Balar, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Surat

ITA 1246/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2417 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-03-2022
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPAMA SINGLA
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1246/AHD/2015 (AY 2007-08) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Shri Jayeshbhai G. Balar 59, Kantareshwar Society, Katargam, Surat-395004 PAN : AGKPB 2472 P Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 8(2),Room No.4,Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat Appellant / assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Revenue by Ms. Anupama Singla,Sr-DR Date of hearing 09.03.2022 Date of pronouncement 09.03.2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-3 Surat [for short to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 03.02.2015 for assessment year (AY) 2007-08, which in turn arise out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide order dated 29.01.2013. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “(1)The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by the ld. A.O u/s 50C of the Act to the tune of Rs.23,57,381/-. (2)The Appellant prays for granting such other relief as maybe deemed just and proper by your Honours considering the factual and legal aspects of the case of the appellant.” ITA No.1246/AHD/2015 (A.Y. 07-08) Sh.Jayeshbhai G Balar 2 2. At the outset of hearing, Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee submits that the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is covered by the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s co-owner’s case in the case of Shri Vinubhai V Navadia vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1,Suratin ITA No.1941/AHD/2014 for AY 2007-08 dated 26.04.2017, copy of which is placed on record. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that during the assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition of Short Term Capital Gains (STCG for short) by invoking of provision of section 50C of the Act. The assessee sold a piece of land alongwith his co-owner, namely, Vinubhai V Navadia and Shri Mavjibhai P. Kakadia. All there were having equal share i.e. 1/3 each. In one of the co-owner’s case, the report of Assistant valuation officer of Income tax Department was filed. The Assistant valuation officer valued the one-third share of property at Rs.34,90,000/-. On the basis of such valuation, the Assessing Officer made addition of STCG in case of Vinubhai V Navadia. In case of Vinubhai V Navadia, the Tribunal granted relief to the extent @ 50% of deemed sale consideration and allow partial relief. The case of assessee is exactly same, therefore the order of Tribunal in co-owner’s case of assessee may be followed. 3. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr.DR) for the Revenue supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). ITA No.1246/AHD/2015 (A.Y. 07-08) Sh.Jayeshbhai G Balar 3 4. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the order of lower authorities carefully. We find that in assessee’s co-owner’s case, (who was owner of 1/3 rd share), the Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Shri Vinubhai V Navadia (supra) passed the following order:- “16. We have heard the rival submission; the short question in controversy is correctness of value of the plot under sale for the purpose of determination of Capital gain with reference to Section 50C of the IT Act. Having regard to the allowance of 30% claimed towards curtailment of land as referred to by CIT(A) in Para 3.2 of the CIT(A) order and also having regard to the comparable rates available at the time of sale coupled with other deficiencies such as lack of direct access to the Plot under sale and pancity of civic amenities etc. we deem it appropriate that the share of the assessee in the sale consideration be taken at Rs.17,45,000/- instead of rs.34,90,000/- determined by the revenue. Accordingly, assessee gets relief to the extent of 50% in the deemed sale consideration. The AO is accordingly directed to re-compute the taxable capital gain in terms of the direction noted above. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.” 5. Considering the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench in assessee’s co-owners case (supra), wherein the share of that co-owner was considered at Rs.17,45,000/- instead of rs.34,90,00/-, therefore, by following the similar view the ground of appeal raised by assessee is partly allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 09/03/2022 by placing result on notice Board. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: /03/2022 Dkp. Out Sourcing P.S ITA No.1246/AHD/2015 (A.Y. 07-08) Sh.Jayeshbhai G Balar 4 Copy to: 1. Appellant- 2. Respondent- 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File True copy/ By order // True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Surat True copy/