Shri Ramanlal Maganlal Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1395/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 72840 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DK MISHR A
• Assessee Lawyers: PARESH L SHAH
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Valuation report

Judgement Text

, , , , SMC, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, SMC BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' # ' !' # ' !' # ' !' # ' BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT ITA NO.1395/AHD/2012 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2008-2009] RAMANLAL MAGANLAL PATEL 11, MANI KAMAL SOCIETY PART-1 NR. SURDHARA CIRCLE THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD 380 054. PAN : AGCPP 9214 F /VS. ITO, WARD-6(2) AHMEDABAD. ( (( (%& %& %& %& / APPELLANT) ( (( ('(%& '(%& '(%& '(%& / RESPONDENT) )* + , #/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PARESH L. SHAH . + , #/ REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K. MISHRA, SR.DR / + *01/ DATE OF HEARING : 3 RD DECEMBER, 2013 234 + *01/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-1-2014 #5 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDA BAD DATED 20.4.2012. 2. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW , ILLEGAL AND ERRONEOUS ON FACTS AND IN LAW. THE SAME BE HELD SO NOW. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING BY CONSIDERING THE VALUE OF LAND IN TERMS OF SQ.METERS INSTEAD OF SQ.YARDS AND CONSIDERED THE VA LUE OF LAND OF RS.2,50,835/- INSTEAD OF RS.3,00,000/- ITA NO.1395/AHD/2012 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN THE COLUMN NO.39 OF THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER, WHEREIN, THE LAND AREA RATE AS ON 1.4.1981 WAS MENTIONED AS ` 500/- PER SQUARE METER, ALTHOUGH AS PER THE VALUER HIMSELF IT WAS AT THE RATE OF ` 500/- PER SQUARE YARD. IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE, HE REFERRED TO COLUMN 12 OF THE SAME VALUATION REPORT AND ALSO PAGE NOS.7 AND 8 OF THE VALUATION REPORT WHEREIN THE LAND WAS VALUED AT ` 500/- PER SQUARE YARD AS ON VALUATION DATE I.E. 1.4.1981, AND THE LAND VALUE IS ARRIVED AT ` 3,00,000/- AS ON 1.4.1981. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT PERMISSION FOR SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CERTIFICATE FROM THE SAID REGISTERED VALUER DATED 8 .8.2012 AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRODUCING T HE SAME EARLIER, AS IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE CIT(A)S AP PELLATE ORDER TO THE REGISTERED VALUER THAT HE REALIZED THE MATTER AND G AVE HIS CLARIFICATION CERTIFICATE. 4. THE LEARNED DR HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY NOT BE ADMITTED AND THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO T HE AO TO VERIFY THE FACTS. HE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE C IT(A). 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES EX PLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE IN THE FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTERED VALUER DATED 8.8.2012 SHO ULD BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. I FIND THAT THE MISTAKE IN CO LUMN NO.39 OF THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER DATED 12.3. 2008 IN MENTIONING THE LAND RATE AS ` 500/- PER SQUARE METER INSTEAD OF ` 500/- PER SQUARE YARD IS ESTABLISHED WITH THE LAST PORTION OF THE SAME VALUA TION REPORT DATED ITA NO.1395/AHD/2012 12.3.2008 WHEREIN THE LAND VALUE HAS BEEN CALCULATE D BY MULTIPLYING 600 SQUARE YARD TO ` 500/- AND ARRIVED AT THE VALUE OF ` 3,00,000/- OF THE LAND AS ON 1.4.1981. THE MISTAKE BEING APPARENT, AND ES TABLISHED WITH THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME VALUATION REPORT DATED 12.3.20 08, I FIND THAT THE AO ITSELF SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE SAME, AND ACCORDI NGLY, THE ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE GROUNDS O F THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD