SMT. SUNITA YADAV, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-4, JAIPUR

ITA 32/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8814 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Set aside

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HES A JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRA M SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 32/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 SMT. SUNITA YADAV 11, VIVEK VIHAR, SHYAM DUNGARI, NARADPURA ROAD, AMER, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD 7(4), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACAPY0830C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. L. PODDAR (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MISS. CHANCHAL MEENA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 02/01/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06/01/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-3, JAIPUR DATED 19.12.2018 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TA KEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE EX-PARTE ORDER BY NOT GIVI NG THE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD AS NO NO TICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 33,45,0 10/- MADE BY THE LEARNED AO U/S 56(2)(VII)(B)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR DRAWN O UR REFERENCE TO THE RELEVANT FACTS AND FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AT PARA 2.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 32/JP/2019 SMT. SUNITA YADAV, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD-7(4), JAIPU R 2 2.1. INCOME U/S 56(2)(VII)(B)(II) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 AS PER THE INFORMATION IN THIS CASE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AGRICULTURE LAND SITUATED AT AMER TOW N, JAIPUR FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.17,00,000/- VIDE REGISTERED SAL E DEED DATED 29.10.2013. HOWEVER, THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY HAD ADOPTED THE SALE VALUE OF WHICH AT RS.50,45,010/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY. THUS, THE STAMP DUTY VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB REGISTER IS EXCEEDING BY RS.33,4 5,010/- WHICH IS MORE THAN FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES THAN THE PURCHASE VALUE. THEREFORE, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B)(II) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF RS. 33,45,010/- IS CHARGEABLE TO BE INCOME-TAX U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIL ED TO DECLARE SUCH INCOME IN HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION. LOOKING TO THE ABOVE DISCREPANCIES, THE ASSESSEE, VIDE NOTE SH EET ENTRY DATED 19.07.2016 WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE EX CESS AMOUNT OF RS.33,45,010/- MAY NOT BE ADDED TO HER TOTAL INCOME . IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE HER WRITTEN SUBMISSION DAT ED 04.11.2016 HAS STATED AS UNDER:- IN THE ABOVE REFERENCE I BEG TO STATE THAT I PURCHASE AN AGRICULTURAL LAND ON DT.29.10.2013 OF RS.17,00,000/ -. THE ABOVE AGRICULTURAL LAND IS SITUATED IN DEEPLY AREA AND AP PROACH TO REACH THE LAND IS VERY TYPICAL AND ABOVE LAND IS DISPUTED AND THE LAND IS UNEVEN AND NO ANY PERSON WAS AGREE TO PURCHASE THE ABOVE L AND AND THE MARKET RATE OF ABOVE LAND WAS NOT MORE THAN RS.17,0 0,000/- THE SELLER IS LIABLE FOR TAX ON DIFFERENCE OF MARKET VALUE AND ST AMPED DUTY VALUE OF RS.50,45,010/- . IT IS THEREFORE MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED YOU TO ADO PT THE VALUE RS. 17,00,000/- OF THE ABOVE LAND AND OBLIGE ....' ITA NO. 32/JP/2019 SMT. SUNITA YADAV, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD-7(4), JAIPU R 3 THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSID ERED BUT THE SAME IS NOT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE. AS PER THE SALE DEED DATED.29.10.2013, THE SUB-REGISTERAR-ILL, JAIPUR HA S ADOPTED THE SALE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AT RS. 50,45,010/- AS AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.17,00,000/-, T HEREFORE, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B)(II) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESSEE CASE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B)(II) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE CHARGE I NCOME TAX ON THE AMOUNT EXCEEDS TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS COMPARE D TO THE STAMP DUTY VALUE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED THE E XCEED AMOUNT IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE EXCESS VALUE OF RS.33,45,010/- IS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS HEREBY ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HER INCOME/FURNISHED INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF HER INCOME BEFORE THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, IT IS A FIT CASE FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING OF U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED TO THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY BEFOR E THE AO AND THEREFORE, THE MATTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED BY THE AO TO T HE DVO FOR DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOT REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO, THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE. 4. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE FINDINGS O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY SPECIF IC REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF THE MATTER TO THE DVO. THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE THEREO F, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO. 32/JP/2019 SMT. SUNITA YADAV, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD-7(4), JAIPU R 4 WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO. SH E ACCORDINGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AGRICULTURE L AND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 17,00,000/- WHEREAS THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY H AS CONSIDERED THE SALE VALUE AT RS. 50,45,010/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED A S HOW CAUSE NOTICE AND IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE STAMP DUTY V ALUATION OF RS. 50,45,010/- AND REQUESTED TO ADOPT VALUE OF RS. 17,00,000/- AS PER THE SALE DEED DATED 29.10.2013. THEREFORE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJEC TED TO THE STAMP DUTY VIOLATION, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT WHICH ARE EQUALLY RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 6(2)(VII)(B)(II) OF THE ACT, THE MATTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS THE MATTER HAS NOT BEEN REFERRED TO THE DVO, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REFERRING TO DVO TO DE TERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND DECIDED AS PER LAW. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/01/2020. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 06/01/2020 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: ITA NO. 32/JP/2019 SMT. SUNITA YADAV, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD-7(4), JAIPU R 5 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. SUNITA YADAV, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 32/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR