ITO, New Delhi V. Mrs. Rita Kalra, New Delhi

ITA 243/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65938 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 12-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Valuation report

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.243/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, MRS. RITA KALRA, WARD-23(2), NEW DELHI. VS. M-73, 2 ND FLOOR, GREATER KAILASH-II NEW DELHI. PAN : AANPK4312N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMA R, SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KAPIL GOEL, A DVOCATE. DATE OF HEARING : 12-12-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-12-2012 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 12-10-2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NE W DELHI. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT ON THE FACTS A ND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF PROPERTY AND UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.13,36,181/-, MADE FOR PURCHASE OF THE SAID PROPE RTY. ITA NO.243/DEL/2012 2 2. DURING HEARING THE LEARNED SR. DR SHRI RAJESH KU MAR SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ADVANCED HIS ARGUMENT WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED. THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS STRONGLY DEFENDED BY OBSERVING THAT IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT THE MARKET RATE OF THE PROPERTY IS ALWAYS HIGHER THAN WHICH IS SHOWN, AT T HE LESSER RATE, IN THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI KAPIL GOEL, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY DEFENDED THE IMPU GNED ORDER BY SUBMITTING THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE PROVING THAT ANY UNDERHAND DEALING WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE OR TO PR OVE THAT ANY MONEY WAS PAID OVER AND ABOVE THE RECORDED AMOUNT IN THE SALE DEED. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE JOINTLY PURCHASED PROPERTY SITUATED AT 2 ND FLOOR (M-73), GREATER KAILASH-II, NEW DELHI FOR RS.12,75,000/- (HALF SHARE EACH). AS PER THE REVENUE THE DECLARED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS TOWARDS LOWER SIDE, CONSE QUENTLY, THE TRANSACTION WAS REFERRED TO THE VALUATION OFFICER TO FIND OUT T HE VALUE/INVESTMENT. THE VALUATION OFFICER OPINED THE VALUE AT RS.26,11,181/ - VIDE LETTER DATED 8-12- 2009. THE VALUATION REPORT WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASS ESSEE TO FILE OBJECTION. THE ASSESSEE VIDE COMMUNICATION DATED 18 TH DECEMBER, 2009 FILED OBJECTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA 3.1 O NWARDS OF THE ITA NO.243/DEL/2012 3 ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREAFTER, THE OBJECTIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE WERE FORWARDED TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. THE COMMENTS OF THE VALU ATION OFFICER ARE ALSO REPRODUCED IN PARA 3.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE REFORE, ARE NOT BEING REPEATED BEING MATTER OF RECORD. FINALLY THE AMOU NT OF RS.13,36,181/- WAS ADDED UNDER SEC. 69B READ WITH SEC. 142A OF THE ACT . 3.1 ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) EXAMINED THE RIVA L SUBMISSIONS, PLACED RELIANCE UPON JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT AND DELETED TH E ADDITION WHICH IS UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY CO NSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE VALUATION REPOR T OF THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER. THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED DURING THE PE RIOD FROM 1980 TO 1989. THE CONSTRUCTION WAS UNAUTHORIZED AND AT THE TIME O F PURCHASE IN MAY 2006, THERE WAS DEMOLITION DRIVE BY THE MCD. THE VALUATI ON OFFICER COMPARED THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE AUCTION PRICE OF RS.81,025/- AGAINST THE MARKET VALUE OF RS.34,100/- PER SQ. MTR . AS PER THE SCHEDULED MARKET RATE, ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF URBAN AFFAIR S, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT (LAND DIVISION) DATED 16.04.1999, THE M ARKET RATE OF THE LAND WERE RS.9,240/- PER SQ. MTR. FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1. 04.1998 TO 31 ST MARCH, 2000. AFTER APPLYING THE COST OF INFLATION INDEX C OST THE VALUE IN 2006 COMES TO RS.12,328/- PER SQ. MTR. THE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED ITA NO.243/DEL/2012 4 18.07.2006 OF CIRCLE RATES WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY T HE LEARNED CIT(A). WE FURTHER FIND THAT AT ANY STAGE NO EVIDENCE WAS BROU GHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT EITHER PROVING THAT ANY UNDERHAND EXCHAN GE OF MONEY WAS DONE WHILE PURCHASING THE PROPERTY OR ANY MONEY BEYOND T HE AMOUNT DECLARED IN THE SALE-DEED EFFECTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE D ECISION FROM HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARGHESE, 131 ITR 59 7, FROM JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN BAJRANG LAL BANSAL, 335 ITR 572 AND S URAJ DEVI, 320 ITR 604 ALONG WITH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ANEETA SINGH (ITA NO.4324/DEL/2009, ORDER DATED 30.08.2011) WHEREIN I T WAS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL SHOWING THAT INVESTMENT MAD E IN THE PROPERTY WAS IN EXCESS OF THE STATED AMOUNT IN THE TITLE DEED TH EN SEC.69B HAS NO APPLICATION HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE IMP UGNED ORDER. UNDER THESE FACTS WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 4. FINALLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN T HE PRESENCE OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONC LUSION OF THE HEARING ON 12 TH DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( B.C. MEENA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.243/DEL/2012 5 DATED: 12 TH DECEMBER, 2012. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.