ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Ali Mohammad, Delhi

ITA 2801/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0018 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM ITA NO.2801/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ITO, WARD 34(1), VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. VS. ALI MOHAMMAD, F-45, NEW SEEMA PURI, DELHI. PAN: AJWPM6484B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : MS. Y. KAKKAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 05.05.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : .05.2015 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 19.3.2013 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2007-08. ITA NO.2801/DEL/2013 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVAN T MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO APPEARANCE FROM THE SIDE OF TH E ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTICE. AS SUCH, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE OF T HIS APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS GI VEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN ESTATE AGENT AND IS IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. THE AIR INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED ABOUT T HE ASSESSEE PURCHASING SOME IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AT RS.34,70,000/ -. THE ASSESSEE PAID ONLY A SUM OF RS.5 LAC BY CHEQUE. ON BEING CA LLED UPON TO EXPLAIN WHERE FROM THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RS.29.70 LAC WA S PAID, THE ASSESSEE DID NEITHER TENDER ANY EXPLANATION NOR FURNISH ANY DETAILS ABOUT THE REMAINING PAYMENTS. THIS LED TO THE MAKING OF ADDI TION OF RS.29.70 LAC. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 4. AFTER PERUSING THE RELEVANT RECORD AND HEARING T HE LD. DR, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE ADDITION FOR THE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED PAYMENT OF RS.29.70 LAC IN RESPECT OF T HE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE AIR I NFORMATION. ON THE ITA NO.2801/DEL/2013 3 OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING IN PARA 3 THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO MERELY ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION TAKEN BY THE REGISTRAR OFFICE FOR REGI STRATION OF DOCUMENTS AND CONSIDERATION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. C IT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAD APPLIED SECTION 50C WHICH WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE VENDOR. WE ARE UNABLE TO ASCER TAIN THE VERACITY OF THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE ADDITION FOR THE REASON THAT THERE IS NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ABOUT THE ADDITION HAVING BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF D IFFERENCE BETWEEN VALUATION TAKEN BY THE REGISTRAR OFFICE AND THE DEC LARED SALE CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DIVULGES THAT THERE WAS AIR INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED IMMOVABLE P ROPERTY FOR RS.34.70 LAC AGAINST WHICH ONLY A PAYMENT OF RS.5 L AC WAS DECLARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS .29.70 LAC REMAINED UNDISCLOSED. IT APPEARS THAT THE LD. CIT( A) GOT SWAYED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROPERLY CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS POINT. IN PARA 3, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO SOME `REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, BU T, THE CONTENTS OF ITA NO.2801/DEL/2013 4 SUCH REMAND REPORT HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSED. THE RE VENUE, THROUGH GROUND NO. 5, IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1 962. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN NOT TO APPEAR TO EXPLAIN HIS PO INT OF VIEW AND THERE IS APPARENT CONTRADICTION IN THE IMPUGNED AND THE A SSESSMENT ORDER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ENDS OF JUST ICE WOULD MEET ADEQUATELY IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE IS S ET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND DIRECT THE AO TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH AS PER LAW, AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE A SSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO LEAD ANY FRESH EVIDENCE IN HIS DEFENCE I N SUCH FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.05.201 5. SD/- SD/- [A.T. VARKEY] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 06 TH MAY, 2015. ITA NO.2801/DEL/2013 5 DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.