Smt. Poonamben A.Patel, Baroda V. The ADIT.,(Intl.Taxn.), Ahmedabad

ITA 257/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67915 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KAREEL SR DR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, , , , B, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, B BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.257/AHD/2013 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2009-2010] SMT. POONAMBEN A. PATEL 21, MEGHDOOT SOCIETY KARELIBAUG, AHMEDABAD 390 018. PAN : AJPPP 5566 N /VS. ADIT (INTL.TAXN) AHMEDABAD. ( (( (-. -. -. -. / APPELLANT) ( (( (/0-. /0-. /0-. /0-. / RESPONDENT) 1& 2 3 )/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR WITH MS.URVASHI SHODHAN + 2 3 )/ REVENUE BY : SHRI P.L. KAREEL, SR.DR 5 2 &(*/ DATE OF HEARING : 8 TH OCTOBER, 2013 678 2 &(*/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/11/2013 )9 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR, DATED 19.12.2012. 2. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SINCE THE A PPELLANT HAD NOT ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH LARSEN & TOU BRO LTD., THE VALUE AS PER THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION ON THE DA TE OF SALE IS ITA NO.257/AHD/2013 -2- APPLICABLE THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD MADE THE OFFER IN FEBRUARY, 2008 & MARCH, 2008. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLAN T CANNOT MAKE REQUEST FOR REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION AND FUR THER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REFERENCE IS NOT MANDATORY AS REQU ESTED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT MADE IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION MADE U/S.50C AMOUNTING TO RS.59,96,250/- IS CORRECT AND FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVI SION OF SECTION 50C, AND HAS CLAIMED THAT THE APPARENT CONSIDERATION MEN TIONED IN THE SALE DEED REFLECTED TRUE CONSIDERATION, AND THEREFORE, A S PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C, THE ISSUE OF VALUATION OF THE PROPE RTY MAY BE REFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER (DVO FOR SH ORT). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD THE AC TION OF THE AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 50C WITHOUT REFER RING THE ISSUE OF VALUATION TO THE DVO, AND THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THE LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PE RUSED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT AS PE R THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, WHERE THE AO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C ADOPTS THE VALUE ADOPTED O R ASSESSED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYME NT OF STAMP DUTY ITA NO.257/AHD/2013 -3- IN RESPECT OF ANY TRANSFER, AND THE ASSESSEES CLAI M BEFORE THE AO THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATIO N AUTHORITY EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON TH E DATE OF TRANSFER, THE AO HAS TO REFER THE ISSUE OF VALUATION OF CAPIT AL ASSETS TO THE DVO. THE WORD MAY MENTIONED IN THE PROVISION OF SECTIO N 50C WITH REGARD TO THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO ARE IN FACT MAND ATORY IN NATURE, AND ANY ASSESSMENT FRAMED WITHOUT REFERRING THE ISS UE OF VALUATION TO THE DVO, IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED T HAT THE VALUE ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY EXCEEDS T HE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER, C OULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BE RES TORED THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AND WITH DIRECT ION TO REFER THE ISSUE OF VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION TO THE DVO BEFORE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE, AND TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFTER ALLOWING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARIN G TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %&'( %&'( %&'( %&'( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) )* + )* + )* + )* + /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD