Maitri Sujal Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 1940/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8567 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Fair market value

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD LOZJH IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHN IZL KN] LOZJH IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHN IZL KN] LOZJH IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHN IZL KN] LOZJH IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHN IZL KN] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1940/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) MAITRI SUJAL SHAH 15, NANDIGRAM SOCIETY, NARANPURA RAILWAY CROSSING NO.1, NARANPURA, AHMEDABAD. / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(4) AHMEDABAD. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AFQPS 3672 F ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. K. PATEL, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ALOK KUMAR, SR. D.R. / DATE OF HEARING 25/07/2017 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15/09/2017 $% / O R D E R PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-10, AHMEDABAD, DATED 5 TH MAY, 2015, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143 (3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER)FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2011-12, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THE HONBLE LEARNED CIT(A) 10 OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECI ATED AND ACCEPTED THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND OUGHT TO HAV E DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ITO OF RS.4,94,798/-. ITA NO. 1940/AH D/2015 SMT/ MAITRI SUJAL SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 2 - II. THE LEARNED CIT (A) 10 OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH E FACTS ON RECORD AND OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE VALUATION OF THE APPROVED VALUER MR. SUTHAR'S VALUE (ASSESSEE'S VALUER) AS ON 01/04/1981. THE VALUER'S REPORT IS ON RECORD OF THE I.T. FILE. III. THE LEARNED CIT (A) 10 OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE T HEORY OF RULE TO VALUE THE PROPERTY AS PER THE REVERSE INDEXATION ME THOD OF THE PROPERTY FOR VALUE AS ON 01/04/1981. IV. THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD AT RS.57 ,50,904/- HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ITO AS FAIR MARKET VALUE TO WH ICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE. THE SHARE OF THE APPELLANT IS 12.50% MEANI NG THE PROPERTY WAS CO-OWNED BY 8 PERSONS JOINTLY. IN IT CASES OF T HE OTHER MEMBERS, THE VALUE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE OFFICER S. V. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE REFERENCE MADE TO A.V.O. I II, GOVT. VALUER BY THE ITO WAS MERELY ON SURMISES AND UNWARRANTED TO T HE FACTS. THE REPORT OF THE A.V.O. III, DO NOT CORRECTLY APPRECIA TE THE FACTS ON RECORD AND HIS ADOPTION OF THE VALUE OF LAND AND CA SES CITED ARE NOT COMPARABLE. THE VALUATION OF THE SUPER-STRUCTURE MA DE BY HIM AT RS.1,42,000/- FOR WHICH THERE IS NO PROPER WORKING ATTACHED HOW THE AMOUNT IS ARRIVED AT. VI. IT IS PRAYED BEFORE YOUR HONOURS THAT THE VALUE AS ON 01/04/1981 AS PER THE VALUER'S REPORT TO MR. SUTHAR BE ACCEPTED A ND THE ADDITION MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,94,798/- BE DELETE D. VII. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER AND AMEND THE G ROUND OF APPEAL. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- IN THIS CASE, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT H AD SOLD A PROPERTY ALONGWITH OTHER CO-OWNERS AND SHOWN LONG TERM CAPIT AL LOSS(LTCL) ON THE SAME. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE APPEL LANT HAD SHOWN THE COST OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.8,28,950/- WHICH WAS BAS ED ON THE REPORT OF A ITA NO. 1940/AH D/2015 SMT/ MAITRI SUJAL SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 3 - REGISTERED VALUER. THE AO REFERRED THE MATTER TO VA LUATION OFFICER U/S.55A OF THE ACT. THE VALUATION OFFICER VALUED TH E PROPERTY AT RS.2,52,113/-. AFTER GIVING THE APPELLANT AN OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD, THE AO ADOPTED THE COST OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.2,52, 113/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG) WERE WORKED OUT AT RS.39,58,381/- AND SHARE OF THE APPELLANT WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.4,9 4,798/-. THUS, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.4,94,798/-. 2.2 DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT SU BMITTED THAT VALUATION MADE BY THE ASSISTANT VALUATION OFFICER-I LL, AHMEDABAD (AVO-III) IS BASED ON WRONG PRESUMPTION AND HENCE C ANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS PER LAW. THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SA LE INSTANCES TAKEN BY THE AVO-III ARE NOT COMPARABLE AND THAT SALE INSTAN CES TAKEN BY THE REGISTERED VALUER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. THE AP PELLANT FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO AND THE AVO-III SHOULD HAVE G IVEN APPROPRIATE DISCOUNT FOR JOINT OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY. THE A PPELLANT FINALLY SUBMITTED THAT THE AO AND THE AVO-III SHOULD HAVE A CCEPTED THE 'REVERSE INDEXATION' METHOD FOR VALUING THE PROPERT Y. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION OF HERS, THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE JUD GMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN LATE SHANTADEVI GAEKWAD VS. DCI T (2012) 250 CTR (GUJ) 421. 2.3 IT IS SEEN THAT THE AVO-III HAD GIVEN HIS REPOR T AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES. THE AVO-III ADDR ESSED EACH AND ITA NO. 1940/AH D/2015 SMT/ MAITRI SUJAL SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 4 - EVERY OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALL THI S IS CONTAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, THE AVO-III ALSO GAVE CO MMENTS ON THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER BY THE APPELLANT. HENCE, T HE AVO-III GAVE HIS REPORT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER INCLUDING OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. FINALLY, AFTER SEEING NO MERIT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE LEARNED CIT DISMISSED THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). HOWEVER, LEARNED AR H AS VOLUNTARILY AGREED FOR THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/-. 4. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE WE ALL OW THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- TO BE MADE. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15/09/2017 SD/- SD/- IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LNL; L; L; L; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 15/09/2017 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NO. 1940/AH D/2015 SMT/ MAITRI SUJAL SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 5 - !'# $#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) () / THE CIT(A)-10, AHMEDABAD. 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , 12$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD TRUE COPY 1. DATE OF DICTATION 29/08/2017 (DICTATION-PAD 4 P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 04/09/2017 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 06/09/2017 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER