SMT. FATIMA BI, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-2, JAIPUR

ITA 1422/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3274 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANMOHAN KANDPAL ACIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHMAN KHAN
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH JES'K LH 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1422/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SMT. FATIMA BI, 34/2, H-2 SHOP, CHAMELIWALA MARKET, M.I. ROAD , JAIPUR. CUKE VS. I.T.O., WARD 2(2), JAIPUR, LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAOPF 1624 K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAHMAN KHAN (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI MANMOHAN KANDPAL (ACIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 22/11/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/11/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD.CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 04/09/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2 008-09 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR TH E ADDITION OF RS. 2,12,891/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N. ITA 1422/JP/2018 FATIMA BI VS ITO 2 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE SOLD SHOPS SITUATED AT MUMTAZ BAGH, CHAMELIWALA MARKET, M.I. ROAD, JAIPUR WITHOUT ROOF RIGHTS THROUGH FOUR SEPARATE REGISTERE D DEEDS. THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SHARE IN ALL THE ABOVE FOUR S HOPS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE VALUE OF RS. 11,94,077/- (1/2 OF VALUE ADOPTED BY SUB-REGISTRAR AS AMOUNT OF SALE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMED COST OF ACQUISITION (COA) OF RS. 4,69,737/- (INDEXE D VALUE RS. 11,60,650/-) IN F.Y. 1992-93. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKE D TO FURNISH JUSTIFICATION OF COA CLAIMED. IN COMPLIANCE TO WHIC H, THE ASSESSEE FILED DLC RATE OBTAINED FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFIC E AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE SECOND CATEGORY RATE OF 18000 /- PCM FOR COA AS THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT CHAMELIWALA MARKET, WHICH IS ADJOINING TO THE M.I. ROAD, JAIPUR. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE VALUED TH REE SHOP AT 80% OF DLC AS THE SAME WAS ON GROUND FLOOR AND ONE SHOP AT 50% AS THE SAME WAS SITUATED AT THIRD FLOOR. HOWEVER, THE A.O. APPLIED THIRD CATEGORY OF RS. 16000/- PCM FOR ALL SHOPS AND VALUA TION OF 70% OF DLC FOR THREE SHOPS ALLEGING THAT ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE SAME, WHICH RESULTED INTO ADDITION OF RS. 2,46,318/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL ITA 1422/JP/2018 FATIMA BI VS ITO 3 GAIN. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRM ED THE ACTION OF THE A.O., AGAINST WHICH, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APP EAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFUL LY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOUND FROM THE RECORD THAT THE A.O. HAS TAKEN THE COST OF LAND AT RS. 18,000/- PER SQUARE METRE WHEREAS, AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME SHOULD BE TA KEN AT RS. 16,000/- PER SQUARE METRE AS THE SHOPS WERE SITUATED FAR AWA Y FROM THE MI ROAD AND THE RATE OF 18,000/- PER SQUARE METRE IS RELATI NG TO THE LAND JUST ADJOINING TO THE MI ROAD. I FOUND THAT THESE SHOPS WERE LOCATED AT CHAMELIWALA MARKET, M.I. ROAD, JAIPUR AND NOT VERY FAR OFF FROM THE M.I. ROAD, JAIPUR. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 5. IT WAS ALSO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A.O. HAS TAKEN 70% OF DLC VALUE FOR THE GROUND FLOOR SHOPS AGAINST 80% TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. I FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CORRECTLY T AKEN 80% OF THE VALUE OF THE DLC RATE AS SPECIFIED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR-2 , JAIPUR BECAUSE SHOPS WAS SOLD WITHOUT RIGHT OF ROOF. IT WAS AS PER GAZET TE NOTIFICATION OF RAJASTHAN STAMP RULE 2004-RULE 58(1)(D) DATED 14/07 /2014 WHERE GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN HAS FIXED THE METHOD OF VAL UATION OF LAND. COPY ITA 1422/JP/2018 FATIMA BI VS ITO 4 OF NOTIFICATION S.O. NO. 289 WAS PLACED BEFORE ME. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO TAKE 80% OF THE VALUE IN PLACE OF 70 %. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25THNOVEMBER , 2019 SD/- JES'K LH 'KEKZ ( RAMESH C SHARMA ) YS[KK LNL;@ @@ @ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 25 TH NOVEMBER, 2019 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SMT. FATIMA BI, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD 2(2), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1422/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR