ACIT, New Delhi V. Ms. Bhawana Bhagat, New Delhi

ITA 299/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53001 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS SRUJANI MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH NARAIN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.299/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ACIT, CIRCLE 32 (1), NEW DELHI. VS. MS BHAWANA BHAGAT, 34-H, ASHOKA AVENUE, SAINIK FARMS, NEW DELHI 110 062. PAN : AAEPB6996N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAKASH NARAIN, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : MRS. SRUJANI MOHANTY, SR. DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. IT IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) DATED 27 TH OCTOBER, 2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,55,444 /- MADE BY THE A.O. BEING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HER SISTER MS DEVIKA BHAGAT JOI NTLY PURCHASED FLATS NOS.1103, 1104, 1203 AND 1204 IN SKY P AN CHS, OBEROI COMPLEX, OFF NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST), M UMBAI, FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 1,20,00,000/-. UPON EXAMINATION OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ON CIRCLE RATE APPLICABLE, THE STAMP DUTY PAID WAS A SUM OF ` 7,72,54 0/- AND THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FO R THE PURPOSE OF ITA NO.299/DEL/2011 2 REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY WAS ` 1,45,10,888/-. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C AND MADE AN ADD ITION OF ` 12,55,444/- (HALF SHARE OF THE TOTAL PROPERTY) AS UND ISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY U/S 69-B. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS DE LETED THE ADDITION FOLLOWING THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS:- (I) CIT VS. CHANDNI BHOCHAR (2010) 323 ITR 510 (P & H). (II) ITO VS. FITWELL LOGIC SYSTEM PVT. LTD. 1 ITR (TR IB) 286 (DEL) (III) KAUSHIK SURESH BHAI VS. ITO (ITA NOS.3374- 3380/AHMEDABAD/2009, DECISION DATED 23 RD APRIL, 2010. 3. IN ALL THE AFOREMENTIONED CASES, IT HAS BEEN HELD T HAT SIMPLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF PRO PERTY WAS ON HIGHER AMOUNT, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER EVIDENCE. THE REVENUE I S AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND, HE NCE, HAS FILED THE AFOREMENTIONED APPEAL. THE LEARNED DR AFTER NARRAT ING THE FACTS AND RELYING ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND IT HAS WRONGLY BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT (A). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE L EARNED CIT (A), IT IS THE CASE OF THE LEARNED AR THAT THE ADDITION HAS RI GHTLY BEEN DELETED AS SECTION 50C COULD NOT BE APPLIED IN THE HANDS OF T HE PURCHASER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD ACCORDING TO WHICH IT CAN BE SAI D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ANY EXTRA AMOUNT OTHER THAN THAT DISCLOSED I N THE PURCHASE DEED. THEREFORE, RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND THE DECISIONS MENTIONED THEREIN, IT IS THE CASE OF THE LEARNED AR T HAT THE ADDITION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED. ITA NO.299/DEL/2011 3 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FACT HAD PAID ANY EXTRA AMOUNT THAN THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION DESCRIB ED IN THE SALE DEED COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD WHICH I S DATED 25 TH AUGUST, 2006. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL, AC CORDING TO THE AFOREMENTIONED JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WE FIND NO I NFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) VIDE WHICH THE IMPUGNED ADDITION H AS BEEN DELETED. WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE AND THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.10.20 11. SD/- SD/- [A.N. PAHUJA] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 21.10.2011. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES