Income Tax Officer-II, Shahjahanpur V. Shri Radha Raman Seth HUF, Bareilly

ITA 136/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 13623714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K RAM
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.136/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 INCOME TAX OFFICER - II, SHAHJAHANPUR. VS. SHRI RADHA RAMAN SETH, HUF 74 - A, GREEN PARK EXTN. COLONY, BISALPUR ROAD, BAREILLY - 243001 PAN:AACHR4362J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI R. K. RAM, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 27/06/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 7 /07/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A), BAREILLY DATED 05/12/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BAREILLY IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.55,75,862/ - . THE CIT (A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT,1961. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS MAY BE CANCELLED AND THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY RESTORED. 2 3. ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER CIT(A). HE A LSO SUBMITTED THAT VALUE OF THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER STAMP DUTY CHART WAS RS.158.35 LAC S BUT ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RS.101 LAC S . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME LAND HAS BEEN VALUE D BY D.V.O. AT RS.1,09,61,132 / - . HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THERE ARE CERTAIN ERRORS IN THE REPORT OF THE D.V.O. HOWEVER, EVEN IF THE REPORT OF THE D.V.O. IS ACCEPTED THEN ALSO , THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.101 LAC IS WITHIN 10% OF THE VALUE AS PER D .V.O. AND UNDER THESE FACTS , NO ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: ( I ) ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH SACHDEVA VS. ACIT, I.T.A. NO.698/LKW/2013, ORD ER DATED 24/03/2014 ( II ) RAHUL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. DCIT [2010] 38 DTR 19 (PUNE) ( III ) ORDER OF I.T.A.T., CHENNAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MIL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT, I.T.A. NO.988/MAD/2011, DATE OF ORDER 07/01/2013 HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT COPIES OF THESE DECISIONS ARE AVAILABLE I N PAPER BOOK. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE AS PER D.V.O. AND ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION IS LESS THAN 10%. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF VARIOUS TRIBUNAL DECISIONS CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE FIRST DECISION I.E. IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH SACHDEVA VS. ACIT (SUPRA), THE DIFFERENCE WAS LESS THAN 5% AND UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD THAT THE VALU E DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. 3 6. IN THE SECOND DECISION I.E. IN THE CASE OF M IL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) , IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT SINCE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE VALU E ADOPTED BY D.V.O. IS HAVING DIFFERENCE OF LESS THAN 10%, THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE VALUE ADOPTED BY D.V.O. IS HAVING DIFFERENCE OF LESS THAN 10% AND HENCE, THI S TRIBUNAL DECISION IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL DECISION, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 7 /07/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR