Late Smt. Ramaben M.Patel Through L/H. Dr. Vijay Mohanlal Patel, Baroda V. The Income Tax Offiver, Ward-2(3), Baroda

ITA 1508/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1668 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 1508/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:1994-95) LATE. SMT. RAMABEN M. PATEL THROUGH L/H DR. VIJAY MOHANLAL PATEL, RIMZIM BINANAGAR SOCIETY, SAYED VASNA ROAD, BARODA-390020 V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (3), BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAPPP7013D APPELLANT BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSION RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NARENDRA SINGH, SR. D.R . ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 13 -04-201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 -05-2016 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-IV, BARODA DATED 19.03.2013 PERTAINING TO A. Y. 1994-95. ITA NO. 1508 /AHD/2013 . A.Y. 1994-9 5 2 2. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSES SEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. I N DISREGARDING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL GIVEN IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL. 3. IN THIS CASE, THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 31. 08.1995 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 4,58,654/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 27.03.1997 DETERMINING THE TOT AL INCOME AT RS. 12,19,073/-. THE MATTER TRAVELLED UP TO THE TRIBUNA L IN ITA NO. 3088/AHD/1997 HELD AS UNDER:- 2. ADMITTEDLY, THE SUBSTITUTED STATUTORY COST AS ON 1-4-1981 WAS CLAIMED TO BE RS. 7,70,600/- FOR BUILDING AND LAND AND THIS IS THE DI SPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE. THE MATTER REQUIRES IS REFERENCE TO THE VA LUATION OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SEC. 55A OF THE ACT AND THE VALUATION OFFICER IS TO BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IF THE SAME WAS DISPUTED IN APPEAL. THIS PROCEDURE HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIRECT THE A.O TO MAKE A REFERENCE FOR VALUING THE PROPERTY BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER AND REFRAME THE ASSE SSMENT AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE OFFICE OF THE VALUATION OFFICER, I.T. DEPART MENT, BARODA. IN SPITE OF THE NOTICE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE VALUATION OFFI CER, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASST. VALUA TION OFFICER, VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 24.03.2005 SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO RUSH OF CASES/INCOMPLETE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO GIVE A VALUATION REPORT BEFORE 31.03.2005. 5. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING BARRED BY LIMITATI ON, THE A.O ADOPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 ITA NO. 1508 /AHD/2013 . A.Y. 1994-9 5 3 @ 27 PER SQ. FT. AS ADOPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HI S ORDER DATED 30.06.1997 AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. 6. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) B UT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. BEFORE US, A WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS BEEN F ILED IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT SINCE THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATIO N, THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A SPECIFIC DIRECTION, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THOSE DIRECTIONS. PER CONTRA, LD. D.R. STR ONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE CAREFU LLY CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIG ATION. WE HAVE ALSO INCORPORATED THE RELEVANT DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNA L ELSEWHERE. 7. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE A.O HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFF ICER WHICH IS AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL GIVEN IN THE FIRST R OUND OF LITIGATION. WE ARE, THEREFORE, LEFT WITH NO CHOICE BUT TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILES OF THE A.O. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE DIRE CTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL GIVEN IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION IN ITS LETTE R AND SPIRIT AND RE-DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE AND SUFF ICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 06 - 05 - 2016. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY