ITO, New Delhi V. Smt. Indrapreet Kaur Sahota, New Delhi

ITA 2162/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69322 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R. P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2160,/DEL/ 2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) ITO VS. HARVINDER SINGH SAHOTA. COY, WARD-10(1), ROOM NO.199, F-484, C. R. BUILDING, VIKASH PURI, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN:AANPS1620D ITA NOS.2161 & 2162/DEL/ 2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 & 2006-07) ITO VS. INDRAPREET KAUR SAHOTA. COY, WARD-10(1), ROOM NO.199, F-484, C. R. BUILDING, VIKASH PURI, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN:AMBPS2034B ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KAPIL GOEL, ADV. REVENUE BY :SHRI SATPAL SINGH, SR. DR ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THESE ARE THREE APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT (A) DATED 14.02.2012, 14.02.2012 AND 10.02.2012. COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE A COMMON ORDER IS BEING PASSED. ITA NOS.2160,2161 &2162/DEL/2012 2 2. THE DISPUTE IN THESE APPEALS RELATES TO ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE OF PROPERTIES PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE AND DVOS REPORT OBTAINED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF DVOS REPORT HAD MADE THE A DDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DECLARED VALUE OF PROPERTIES AND VALUES ASCERTAINED BY DVOS U/S 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS HAD DELETED THE ADDITIONS AND, THEREFORE, THE REVENUE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBM ITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CALCULATED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DVO A ND VALUES DECLARED BY ASSESSEE ON A REASONABLE BASIS AND, THEREFORE, LD. CIT (A) SHOULD NOT HAVE DELETED THE ADDITIONS. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE IT A NOS.2412 AND 3651 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES HIMSELF AND HER WIFE AND OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAPER BOOK PARA 10 TO 12 ON PAGE 5 TO 7 OF THE SAID ORDER. ON THE STRENGTH OF THIS JUDGMENT THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER R ELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2979 IN THE CASE OF SHRI PRADEEP SINGH WHEREIN ITA NOS.2160,2161 &2162/DEL/2012 3 UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDE D IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. OUR SPECIFIC ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAR A 2.5 OF THE SAID ORDER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT COMMON ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT BY DVOS CAN MADE ADDITION ON ACCO UNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUCH VALUE AND VALUES DECLARED BY ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE HIMSELF IN THE YEAR 2004-05 THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDE D VIDE PARA 8 TO 13 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT ( A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 9. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADD ITION SINGULARLY ON THE BASIS OF DVOS REPORT. THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS GIVEN IN THE SALE DEED WAS RS.12,50,000 /-. NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO THE EFFECT THAT ANY FURTHER AMOUNT HAD P ASSED HANDS IN THE DEAL. IN SUCH A SCENARIO, OBVIOUSLY, THERE W AS NO OCCASION TO ACCEPT THE DVOS REPORT AS A GOSPEL TRUTH. THE A SSESSEE HAD CITED COMPARABLE CASES, WHICH UNDISPUTABLY REMAINED UNREBUTTED IN THE REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO, ERNAKULAM, 13 1 ITR 597(SC) IS, THAT THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT THE CORNER S TONE OF THE PROPOSITION THAT IT IS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO MU ST BRING ON RECORD EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT SOME EXTRA EXPENDITUR E PASSED IN SUCH A TRANSACTION OF PROPERTY. IN THE PRESENT CASE , NOTHING TO THIS EFFECT HAS COME ON RECORD, AS CORRECTLY APPREC IATED BY THE LD. CIT (A). THE COMPARABLE CASE GIVEN BY THE ASSES SEE WAS, FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM, IGNORED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. SO FAR AS REGARDS THE VALUATION OFFICER, I T WAS BASED ON ITA NOS.2160,2161 &2162/DEL/2012 4 THE FACT AND NOT DISPUTED BEFORE US THAT HE HAD TAK EN INTO CONSIDERATION ONE PROPERTY WHICH WAS BETTER LOCATED THAN THE PROPERTY HAD NOT AND SO IT WAS NOT COMPARABLE TO TH E PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSSEE. 10. THE OBJECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING INVOC ATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, DESPITE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING INVOKED SECTION 69B, IS ALSO NOT OF ANY AID TO THE REVENUE. IN CIT VS. PUNEET SBHARWAL (SUPRA), THE F ACTS ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR TO THOSE PRESENT HERE. THEREIN, THE ADDITION WAS MADE U/S 69B OF THE ACT. THE ADDITION WAS BASED SOL ELY ON THE REPORT OF THE DVO. THE MATTER WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SOLELY RELIED ON THE REPORT O F THE DVO, APART FROM WHICH, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSSEE HAD PAID EXTRA CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABO VE WHAT WAS STATED IN THE SALE DEED AND SO, THE ADDITION WAS NO T JUSTIFIED. SIMILAR ARE THE DECISIONS IN CIT VS SMT. SURAJ DEV I (SUPRA) AND CIT VS. NAVEEN GERA (SUPRA). 11. APROPOS, AMAR KUMARI SURANA (SMT) VS. CIT 226 ITR 344 (RAJ) SOUGHT TO BE RELIED ON BY THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. THIS DECISION ALSO, TO OUR MINDS, D OES NOT GO TO MAKE THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT ANY BETTER. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS STRESSED ON THE OBS ERVATIONS MADE THEREIN TO THE EFFECT THAT:- ALTHOUGH ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION REPORT AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE, AFTER OBTAINI NG THE VALUATION REPORT THE PLOT OF LAND NOTICED HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE VALUE OF THE P LOT OF LAND IN QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS PER THE VALUATION R EPORT AND ON THE BASIS OF COMPARABLE CASES. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY REASON AS TO WHY THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ROUGHLY THE PREVALENT MARKET RATE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT THE ONLY INFERENCE THAT COULD BE DRAWN WAS THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD, IN FACT, CONCEALED THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PAID TO TH E SELLER. THE ADDITION MADE U/S 69B WAS JUSTIFIED. 12. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS FIRSTLY SEEN THAT THIS DE CISION, AT THE OUTSET, RECOGNIZES THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION, AS I N THE CASE LAW ITA NOS.2160,2161 &2162/DEL/2012 5 DISCUSSED ABOVE, THAT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE VA LUATION REPORT AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, NO ADDITION MADE. THEN T HE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE DO NOT TALLY WITH THOSE IN THE PRE SENT CASE, THE COMPARABLE CASES CITED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NEVER T AKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, WHEREAS THOSE RELIED ON WERE NOT COM PARABLE AT ALL. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, RELYING ON T HE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISIONS (SUPRA), THE LD . CIT (A)S ORDERS ARE TO BE CONFIRMED AND WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY . 13. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTME NT ARE DISMISSED. 6. WE FIND THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPE ALS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SAME AS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL I N ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE ARE DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30 TH /09/ 2013. SD/- SD/- (R. P. TOLANI) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013 S.SINHA COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR,ITAT NEW DELHI.