Ashish Kumar Agarwal, Ranchi V. ITO,Ward-2(5), Ranchi

ITA 243/RAN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8727 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDAN DAS J
• Assessee Lawyers: HARI LAL PATEL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 56(2)(vii)(b); 143(3); 50C; 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH SMC RANCHI BEFORE SHRI S.S, GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.243/RAN/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 ASHISHI KUMAR AGARWAL, DWARIKA KUNJ, H.B. ROAD, KOKAR, RANCHI-834001 [ PAN NO.AEVPA 8404 K ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, RANCHI- 834001 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI HARI LAL PATEL, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI CHANDAN DAS, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 11-01-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08-04-2019 /O R D E R THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 , ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-RANCHIS ORDER DATED 30.05.2018 PASSED IN CASE NO. CIT(A), RANCHI/10333/2016-17, INVOLVING PR OCEEDINGS 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 GRIEVANCE RAISED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S ACTION MAKING SEC. 56(2)(VII)(B) ADDITION OF 12,00,500/- FOLLOWED BY SEC. 234B INTEREST THEREUPO N. THE LEARNED COUNSELS FIRST ARGUMENT BEFORE ME IS THAT ASSESSEE S CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY SEC. 56(2)(VII)(B) FIRST AND SECOND PROVISO ACCEPTING TH E RELEVANT SALE / PURCHASE CONSIDERATION TO BE CORRECTED IN CASE THE SAME HAS BEEN PAID BY ANY OTHER MOIR THAN CASH ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF AGREEMENT. I FIND NO MERIT IN ASSESSEES INSTANT FORMER ARGUMENT AS IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD TENDERED A POST DATED CHEQUE DATED 31.01.2009 AS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEME NT DATED 15.06.2008, IT CANNOT ITA NO. 243/RAN/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 ASHISH KR. AGARWAL VS. ITO WD-2(5), RNC PAGE 2 BE TAKEN TO HAVE SATISFY THE RELEVANT SALE CONSIDER ATION MAKING THE PAYMENT ITSELF TO BE MADE ON OR BEFORE SUCH AN AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEES FIRST ARGUMENT FAILS THEREFORE. 3. NEXT COMES EQUALLY SIGNIFICANT ASPECT OF THE NON CORRECTNESS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION NOT MAKING ANY REFERENCE TO THE DVO AS STIPULATED IN SEC.56(2)(VII)(B) FIRST PROVISO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT SEC. 50C(2) OF THE ACT WOULD BE APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL. THE REVENUES ONLY ARGUMENT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IS THAT ASSESSEE NEVER MADE SUCH PLEA BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. I FIND THAT HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURTS DECISION IN SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL VS. CIT 372 ITR 83 (CAL) HAS ALREADY SETTLED THE LEGAL POSITION THAT SEC. 50C (2) REFERENCE HAS TO BE MANDATORILY MADE EVEN IN ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE NOT RAISING SUCH A PLEA BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I THEREFORE RESTORE THE INSTANT ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS TO BE FINALIZED THE SAM E AFTER MAKING DVOS REFERENCE IN CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS. SECTION 234B INTEREST SH ALL BE COMPUTED AS PER LAW AS GOING BY THE LATEST LEGAL POSITION. THE ASSESSEE SH ALL BE AT LIBERTY TO RAISE ALL LEGAL AS WELL AS FACTUAL ARGUMENT ON THESE ASPECTS. 4. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 34(4) OF T HE ITAT RULES BY PUTTING ON NOTICE BOARD ON 08/04/2019 SD/- (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBE R RANCHI, *DKP/SR.PS - /04/2019 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-ASHISH KUMAR AGARWAL, DWARIKA KUNJ, H.B. ROAD, KOKAR, RANCHI-834001 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO WD-2(5), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, RANCHI 3. $ ' / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' - / CIT (A) 5. ( ++$ , $ / DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. - / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY/P.S $,