Surjeet Kaur, Saharanpur V. ITO, Saharanpur

ITA 3250/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61613 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAMTA KOCHAR
• Assessee Lawyers: P K JAIN; R S SWARANKAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AN PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 3250/DEL/2011 A.Y. : - 2007-2008 SMT.SURJEET KAUR VS. ITO, WARD 2, SAHARANPUR W/O SHRI HARBHAJAN SINGH 2/755, RAM NAGAR, SAHARANPUR PAN: AHBPK4214C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PK JAIN & R.S.SWARANKAR, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : MS. MAMTA KOCHAR, D.R. O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.3.2011 OF CIT(A),MUZAFFARNAGAR PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2007-08 WHEREIN VARIOUS GROUND HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE ASSESSEES SHARE WAS LIMI TED TO 50%. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SHOWED A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.67,838/- IN REGARD TO SALE OF SHOP WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD HAL F SHARE. THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE VALUATION REPORT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AND WAS OF ITA NO. 3250/DEL/2011 PAG E 2 OF 4 A.Y. 2007-08 SMT.SURJEET KAUR THE VIEW THAT AS PER THE SALE DEED TOTAL SALE CONS IDERATION AS PER CIRCLE RATE WAS RS.9,91,000/- (HALF SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE ). ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE VALU E OF SHOP NO.9B AT NOVELTY MARKET BE NOT TAKEN AS PER SECTION 50C OF T HE I.T.ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE CIRCLE RATE OF NOVEL TY CINEMA IS VERY EXCESSIVE THAN THE ACTUAL PRICE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT THE VALUATION WAS REFERRED BY THE A.O. TO THE D.V.O. VIDE LETTER DT. 1.12.2009. SINCE THE REPORT FROM THE DVO WAS N OT RECEIVED BY THE A.O. BY 31.12.2009 WHICH WAS THE LAST DATE OF COMP LETING THE ASSESSMENT THE A.O. PROCEEDED TO DETERMINE THE CAPI TAL GAIN AFTER ADOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT THE VALUE ADOPTE D FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. 3. IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT( A) THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) A ND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE WAS DETERMINED BY DVO AT RS. 10,32,000/- AND THE ASSESSEES SHARE WORKED OUT WAS RS. 5,16,000/-. ACCORDINGLY T HE CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO RECOMPUTE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AFTER ADOPT ING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.5,16,000/- BEING VALUE OF HALF SHARE OF THE PROPERTY DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND PASS THE NECESSARY ORDER. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4.1. LD.A.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF COORDINATE BE NCH RENDERED ON 24 TH AUGUST, 2011 IN THE CASE OF THE CO OWNER IN ITA 32 51/DEL/11, A COPY OF ITA NO. 3250/DEL/2011 PAG E 3 OF 4 A.Y. 2007-08 SMT.SURJEET KAUR WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE BENCH SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS TO BE RESTORED TO THE A.O. AS FACTS, ARGUMENTS REMAINED THE SAME. 4.2. LD.D.R. ON A PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH THOUGH RELYING UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF A.O. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED CAREFULLY THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. A PERUSAL OF THE ORD ER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE CO-OWNERS CASE IT IS SEEN THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH VIDE PARA 6 RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE A .O. WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DVO HAS VALUED TH E TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.10,32,000/- THE ASSESSE ES SHARE BEING RS.5,16,000/-. ON PERUSAL OF THE DVOS REPOR T, WE FIND THAT THE DVO HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE VALUATION REPOR T SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, FIND IT FIT AND PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E A.O. FOR HIS FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE HIS SAY AGAINST THE VALUATI ON REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DVO AND THEN TO CONSIDER ALL THE F ACT AND EVIDENCES OF THE CASE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER L AW. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES IDENTICAL DIRECTIONS ARE ISSUED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 3250/DEL/2011 PAG E 4 OF 4 A.Y. 2007-08 SMT.SURJEET KAUR PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH MARCH,2012 IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (A.N. PAHUJA ) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13 TH MARCH, 2012 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CI T(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR