Anilava Chatterjee , Kolkata V. ACIT, Circle - 24(1), , Hooghly

ITA 2009/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6262 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: IMLIMERAN JAMIER
• Assessee Lawyers: A N CHATTERJEE
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH SMC KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S, GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2009/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 ANILAVA CHATTERJEE 38/1 P.C. BANERJEE ROAD, DAKSHINESWAR, KOLKATA-700 076 [ PAN NO.AFRPC 5017 R ] / V/S . ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KHADINAMORE, G.T. ROAD, CHINSURAH, HOOGHLY, /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI A.N. CHATTERJEE, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI IMLIMERAN JAMIER, ADDL. CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 21-01-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25-01-2019 /O R D E R THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 , ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-6, KOLKATAS O RDER DATED 26.06.2018 PASSED IN CASE NO.10297/CIT-6/KOL/2-16-17, INVOLVING PROCEED INGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND PLEADED I N THE INSTANT APPEAL SEEKS TO REVERSE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION INVOKING SEC.56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT FOR ADDING THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION OF 9,15,000/- IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AS AFFIRMED IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. SUFFICE TO SAY, THE IMPUGNED SUM REPRESENTS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STAMP VALUE OF 20.15 LAC AS AGAINST THE SALE DEED PRICE OF 11 LAC. PERTAINING TO THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN ISSUE. BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS ITA NO. 2009/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2 014-15 ANILAVA CHATTERJEE VS. ACIT, CIR-24(1 ), HGY PAGE 2 CIT(A) ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS DIFFERENTIAL SUM D ESERVES TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. LEARNED DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO DISPUTE THAT SEC. 56(2)(VII)(C) PROVISO STIPULATES THAT THE ISSUE OF VALUATION HAS TO BE REFERRED TO VALUATION OFFICER AS PER SEC. 50C OF TH E ACT. HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION IN SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL VS. CIT 372 ITR 83 (CAL) HOLDS THAT SUCH A REFERENCE TO THE DVO IS VERY MUCH MANDATORY EVEN IF AN ASSESSEE DOES NOT RAISE THE PLEA DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. I THEREFORE R ESTORE THIS VALUATION ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROCEED FURTHER AS PER SEC . 50C OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NO OTHER ARGUMENT HAS BEEN RAISED BEFORE ME D URING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 3. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSE IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25/01/2019 SD/- (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBE R KOLKATA, *DKP/SR.PS - 25/01/2019 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-ANILAVA CHATTERJEE, 38/1, P.C. BANERJEE ROAD, DAKSHINESWAR KOLKA TA-700076 2. /RESPONDENT-ACIT, CIR-24(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KHADIN AMORE, G.T. ROAD, CHNSURAH, HOOGHL Y 3. ' % / CONCERNED CIT 4. % - / CIT (A) 5. & ))' , ' / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. + / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ / ',