M/S DOWELL'S ELECTRO WERKE, MUMBAI V. ACIT - 12(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2643/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 264319914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JEETENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD KUMAR PARIDA; SANJUKTA CHAUDHARY
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND VIVEK VARMA, (JM) . . , , ./I.T.A. NO.2643/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) M/S DOWELLS ELECTRO WERKE, 1 ST FLOOR, SATGURU INDL. ESTATE, OFF, AAREY ROAD, GOREGAON(E), MUMBAI-400063 / VS. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12(3), MUMBAI. ( / APPELLANT) .. ( ! / RESPONDENT) ./ '# ./PAN/GIR NO. :AAAFD0244K $ / APPELLANT BY SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR PARIDA AND MS. SANJUKTA CHAUDHARY ! % $ /RESPONDENT BY SHRI JEETENDRA KUMAR & ' % () / DATE OF HEARING : 3.11.2014 *+ % () /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 5.11.2014 / O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2013 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-23, MUMBAI AND IT RE LATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DEC ISION OF LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE SALE CONSIDERATION DETERMINED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICERS REPORT. 2. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. TH E LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND IT WA S CONSTRAINED TO SELL A LAND ON 06-06-2005 IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE LOANS OBTAINED F ROM BANKS. THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS AS PER THE CONVEYANCE DEED WAS RS .1.80 CRORES. HOWEVER, THE SALE VALUE WAS DETERMINED AT RS.2,82,92,500/- B Y THE STAMP AUTHORITY FOR THE 2 PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ADOPTED THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STAMP AUTHORITY FOR WORKING OUT T HE CAPITAL GAIN AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 50C OF THE ACT. WHEN THE MATTE R TRAVELLED TO THE ITAT, THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO DETERMINE THE SALE CONSIDERATION AFTER OBTAINING VA LUATION REPORT. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A VALUATION R EPORT OBTAINED FROM A REGISTERED VALUER, WHO HAD VALUED THE PROPERTY AT R S.1,75,50,000/-. HOWEVER, THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) TO WHOM RE FERENCE WAS MADE BY THE AO DETERMINED THE VALUE OF THE LAND AT RS.2,09,62,0 00/-. THE AO CHOSE TO PREFER THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND ACCORDIN GLY COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF TH E AO. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO SELL THE LAND IN DISTRESS, SINCE THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE ONE TIME SETTLEMENT SCHEME OF THE BANKS AND THE DEAD LINE FOR REPAYING THE LOAN WAS NEARING EXPIRY. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD A.R S UBMITTED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION DECLARED IN THE SALE DEED SHOULD BE A DOPTED FOR WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAIN. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOLLOWED THE MANDATE PRESCRIBED U/S 50C OF THE ACT AND HENCE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 3. HOWEVER, ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF LD CIT( A), WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF DISTRESS SALE. FU RTHER THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT DID NOT M ENTION ABOUT THE DATE OF HIS VISIT TO THE SITE. FURTHER THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF DR. INDIRA SWAROOP BHATNAGAR (349 ITR 210) AND OBSERVED THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE DVOS REPORT IS BINDING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD A.R PLEADED ABOUT THE CLAI M OF DISTRESS SALE, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN REJECTED BY LD CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE A SSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY MATERIAL TO CONTRADICT THE SAID FINDING OF LD CIT(A ). THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT POINT OUT ANY DEFECT OR DEFICIENCY IN THE VALUE DET ERMINED BY THE DVO IN ORDER TO COMPEL US TO INTERFERE WITH THE VALUE DETERMINED BY HIM. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A). 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5TH NOV , 2014. *+ & , -. 5TH NOV, 2014 + % /' 0 SD SD ( / VIVEK VARMA) ( . . / B.R. BASKARAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & ' MUMBAI:5TH NOV,2014. . . ./ SRL , SR. PS !'#$% &%'# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & 1( ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. & 1( / CIT CONCERNED 5. 2/ (3 , ) 3 , & ' / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / 4' / GUARD FILE. 5 & / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY 6 ' (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ) 3 , & ' /ITAT, MUMBAI