Smt. Arvind Kaur Wadhwa, New Delhi V. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 278/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65979 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHIM SINGH
• Keywords: Salary income; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Valuation report

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 278/DEL/2012 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 278/DEL/2012 A.Y. : 2006-07 SMT. ARVIND KAUR WADHWA, F-60, RAJOURI GARDEN, NEW DELHI 110 027 (PAN : AAAPW0038L) VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 45, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SH. AKHILESH GUPTA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. BHIM SINGH, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: PER SHAMIM YAHYA: PER SHAMIM YAHYA: PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM AMAM AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXI, NEW DEL HI DATED 25.11.2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS UNDER:- I) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW BY IGNORING THE VALUATION OF REGISTERED VALUER FOR COMPUTING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 1981 FOR THE PURPOSES OF CAPITAL GAINS. ITA NO. 278/DEL/2012 2 II) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, MODIFY, SUBSTITUTE OR DELETE ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE IS A READER IN LADY IR WIN COLLEGE AND DERIVING INCOME FROM SALARY AND OTHER SOURCES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IN THIS CASE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ONE PROPERTY NAMELY PLOT NO. 44A, BLOCK-B, EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI MEASURING 300 SQ.YDS. ON 12.5.200 5 FOR ` 1,80,00,000/-. THE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS MENTIONE D BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AN AMOUNT OF ` 1200000/- @ ` 4000/- PER SQ.YD. FOR THE PURPOSE OF COST OF ACQUISITION, THERE WAS VALUATION REPORT PREPARED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE O PINION THAT THE RATE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO ` 4000/- IS UNRE ASONABLY HIGH AND ILLOGICAL. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE EXPLAN ATION IN THIS REGARD. ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDE D BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENT TO CONFRONT THE INSTANCES QUOTED BY THIS OFFICE VIDE ABOVE MENTIONE D QUESTIONNAIRE. THE MAXIMUM RATE ON WHICH THE PROPE RTY OF THIS AREA WAS SOLD AT ` 11,000/- IN THE CASE OF SMT. CHANDU DANDA AS SELLER AND M/S DALJIT EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ON 21.1.1980. KEEPING IN LIBERAL VIEW IN THIS CASE, THE VALUE OF THE LAND OF THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE IS FIXE D AT ` 2000/- PER SQ YARD. ITA NO. 278/DEL/2012 3 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BE FORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A). ASSESSEE ALSO FUR NISHED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ADMITTED THE ADDITIONA L EVIDENCES. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE RELATED TO APPLICATION DATE D 9.12.2009 FILED UNDER RTI TO DDA TO ENQUIRE ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE PR OPERTY, REPLY OF WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN JANUARY, 2010 . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING THE EVIDENCE AT THE TIME O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE SAME WAS FURNISHED UNDER RULE 46A BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A). LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (A) NOTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE RAT E AT ` 2000/- PER SQ.YDS. TO DETERMINE CAPITAL GAIN. BUT HE NOTED TH AT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CLARIFIED THE BASIS FOR TAKING RATE OF ` 20 00/- PER SQYDS. EVEN THOUGH HE HAS MENTIONED RATE OF ` 11000/- PER SQ.Y DS IN CASE OF ANOTHER PERSON. SIMILARLY, LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (A) OBSERVED THAT RATE OF ` 4000/- PER SQYDS. TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT POSSESS ANY SUPPORT FROM ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED E ITHER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE COURS E OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 4.1 LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HELD THAT AF TER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON RATE OF ` 3475/ - PER SQ.MTR., AS ON 5.11.1981 BY PRODUCING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) NOTED THAT IF THIS RATE IS BEING REL IED UPON, RATE PER SQ YARDS WILL BE AROUND ` 3128/- ONLY. SO, LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HELD THAT THE RATE OF ` 4000/- PER SQYDS. D OES NOT GET ANY SUPPORT FROM ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, BUT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN A JUDICIOUS MANNER, ITA NO. 278/DEL/2012 4 RATE OF ` 3475/- PER SQMTR., AS ON 5.11.1981 WAS BE ING TAKEN. HENCE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HELD THAT ON 1.4.8 1, RATE SHOULD BE AT ` 3100/- PER SQYDS. WHICH IS VERY NEAR TO THE FIGURE RELIED ON DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE RATE OF ` 4000/- PER SQ.YD. BECAUSE OF THE ADVANTAGE OF LOCATION AND OTHER FACTORS. HOWEVER, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY COGENT EVIDENCE TO BUTTRESS THE CLAIM THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION SHOULD BE ` 4000/-. ON THE OT HER HAND, ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A). THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SHOW ED THAT IN THE NEARBY LOCATION THE PREVALENT RATE WAS ` 3475/- PER SQ.MTR. A COPY OF THE SAID RTI INFORMATION IS AS UNDER:- MRS. ARVIND WADHWA, F-60, RAJOURI GARDEN, NEW DELHI 110 027 SUB: INFORMATION REQUIRED UNDER RTI ACT-2005 (R EGARDING RATE OF AUCTION OF PLOT NO. 306 OR SO IN BLOCK-A, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE FOR THE PERIOD OCT., 1981. REF:- RTI ID NO. 5782 DATED 9.12.09 REFERENCE YOUR RTI APPLICATION ID NO. 5782 DATED 9.12.209 ON THE ABOVE CITED SUBJECT. IN THIS CONTEXT, I AM TO INFORM YOU THAT AS PER RECORDS AVAILABLE IN THIS OFFICE, THE AUCTION HAD NOT BEEN HEL D IN R/O ABOVE MENTIONED PLOTS IN OCT., 1981. HOWEVER, THE AVERAGE AUCTION RATE IN RESPECT OF THE PLO T NOS. A-1/310, 312 & 313, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, WHICH WERE AUCTIONED ON 5.11.81, IS AVAILABLE WHICH IS ` 3475/ - PER SQ. MT. ITA NO. 278/DEL/2012 5 THIS IS AS PER INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE BY ASSESS ING OFFICER (RL)DDA. 7. HENCE, WE FIND THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS CONSIDERED THE RATE APPLICABLE FOR THE NEARBY PROPE RTY OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE HERSELF. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESS EES CONTENTION IS THAT THE PLOT ENJOYS LOCATION ADVANTAGES, HENCE, RAT E SHOULD BE ALLOWED OF ` 4000/- PER SQY.YD. HOWEVER, WE AGREE WITH T HE FINDING OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) THAT THIS IS NOT BUTT RESSED BY ANY COGENT EVIDENCE. RATHER THE EVIDENCE POINT OUT THAT RATE OF ` 3100/- PER SQ.YD. TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR COST OF ACQUISITI ON ON 1.4.81 IS A REASONABLE AND BASED UPON COGENT EVIDENCE. UNDER TH E CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/11/2012. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 30/11/2012 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES