Harpreet Singh, Chandigarh V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

ITA 1411/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8243 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Fair market value; Valuation report; Condonation of delay
• Section: 50C; 37; 15

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1411/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI HARPREET SINGH VS. THE ACIT, 354, ADVOCATE SOCIETY, CIRCLE 5 (1), CHANDIGARH SECTOR 49-A, CHANDIGARH (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. AJAY JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 20.02.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, CHANDIGARH DATED 04.2.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE FILE D THIS APPEAL ON 20.12.2016. THE ASSESSEE ALSO MADE REQUEST FOR CON DONATION OF DELAY OF THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFER ING FROM ENDOGENOUS DEPRESSION AND WAS TAKING TREATMENT FOR THE SAME SI NCE 15 TH FEBRUARY 2016. HE HAS PRODUCED A COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICAT E DATED 14.2.2017 TO THAT EFFECT. IN THIS CASE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A) WAS COMMUNICATED ON 28.2.2016. THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL WAS 28 APRIL 2016, THEREFORE, THERE IS A DELAY OF 236 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. 2 3. THE LD. DR HAS OBJECTED TO THE CONDONATION OF D ELAY. 4. ON THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY, I FIND TH AT RECENTLY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA VS. UJAGAR SINGH AND OTHERS, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2395 OF 2008, JU DGMENT DATED 9TH JUNE, 2010, AT PARA 1 HELD AS FOLLOWS: WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY NO STRAIGHT JACKET FORMULA IS PRESCRIBED TO COME TO A CONCLUSION IF SUFFICIENT AN D GOOD GROUNDS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OR NOT. EACH CASE HAS TO BE MADE FROM ITS FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH PARTY ACTS AND BEHAVES. FROM THE CONDUCT, BEHAVIOR ARID ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLANT IT CANNOT HE SAID THAT IT HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY CALLOUS AND NEGLIGENT IN PROSECUTING THE MATTER.' IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS UNDERGOING MEDICAL TREATMENT AND WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO TAKE THE DECISION AT THAT TIME. NO CALLOUSNESS OR NEGLIGENCE CAN BE ATTRIBUTA BLE DIRECTLY TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I CONDO NE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ADMIT THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1411/CHD /2016. 5. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UND ER: THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 21,06,163/- U/S 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 6. ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS. 21,06,163/- U/S 50C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSME NT ORDER WAS PASSED 3 WITHOUT RECEIVING THE REPORT FROM THE DISTRICT VALU ATION OFFICER. PB-16 IS LETTER OF DVO DATED 8.11.2011. THE PROVISIONS CONTA INED, AS PER SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT ARE AS UNDER:- 50C (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB -SECTION (1), WHERE (A) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED (OR ASSESSABLE) BY THE ST AMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB SECTION (1) EXCEEDS T HE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRAN SFER: (B) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED (OR ASSESSABLE) BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFER ENCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY OTHER AUTHORITY, COURT OR HIGH COURT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF T HE CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER AND WHERE ANY SUCH REFERENCE IS MADE, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS ( 2), (3), (4), (5) AND (6) OF SECTION 16A, CLAUSE (I) OF SUB- SECTION (1) AND SUB-SECTIONS (6) AND (7) OF SECTION 23A, S UB- SECTION (5) OF SECTION 24, SECTION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957) , SHALL, WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS, APPLY IN RE LATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFER ENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THAT ACT. 7. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FOU ND TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE RECEIPT OF VALUATION REPORT FROM THE DVO AS REQUIRED WHEN ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT IT WAS DISTRESSED UNDER 4 CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD CALL FOR REPORT FROM DVO. 8. HAVING ADMITTED THE CASE ON CONDONATION OF DELAY , IT IS FELT THAT JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IF THE CASE IS SENT BACK TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DETERMINATION OF THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL GAINS AFT ER RECEIPT OF THE VALUATION REPORT FROM THE DVO. ACCORDINGLY, THE CAS E IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECISION AFRESH G IVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. . 9. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : IST MARCH, 2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR