The ITO, Ward-8(2), Surat V. Shri Indravadan Maganlal Reshamwala(HUF), Surat

ITA 3388/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 338820514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

, , , , B, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, B BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ #$ #$ #$ # ## #. .. .% %% % . .. .&'( &'( &'( &'(, , , , %) * %) * %) * %) * % ' % ' % ' % ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.3388 /AHD/2010 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2006-2007] ITO, WARD-8(2) SURAT. /VS. SHRI INDRAVADAN MAGANLAL RESHAMWALA (HUF) PROP: OF KAMLA TWISTER P-241, OLD GIDC, KATARGAM SURAT. PAN : AAAHI 2886 N ( (( (,- ,- ,- ,- / APPELLANT) ( (( (./,- ./,- ./,- ./,- / RESPONDENT) * 0 1 %/ REVENUE BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL, SR.DR 34 0 1 %/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VINOD GOYAL 5 0 46)/ DATE OF HEARING : 30 TH JULY, 2013 7&8 0 46)/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02-08-2013 %9 / O R D E R PER GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE LEARNE D CIT(A)-V, SURAT DATED 20.9.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE A.O. ON ITA NO.3388 /AHD/2010 -2- ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.19,76,342/- BY HOLDING THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN IS TAXABLE U/S.50C OF THE ACT AND NOT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT DESP ITE THE NET THAT THERE IS NO REGISTERED SALE DOCUMENT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,76,342/- AFTER ACCEPTING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF LAND AT RS.60/ - PER SQ.MTR. ON THE STRENGTH OF THE REGISTERED VALUER'S REPORT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE RATE AT RS.25/- PER SQ.MTR ON T HE BASIS OF SALE DEEDS REGISTERED AT THE TIME IN THAT LOCALITY . 3. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, W HEREAS THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF KAUSHIK SURESB HAI RESHAMWALA AND OTHERS IN ITA NO.3374-3380/AHD/2009 DATED 23.4.2010 . HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION. HE ALSO SUBMITTED T HAT AGAINST THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER, APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE REVENUE B EFORE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, AND THE SAME WERE DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN TAX APPEAL NO.2300 TO 2306 OF 2010, AS PER THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.6.2011. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE CO-OWNERS OUT OF TOTAL 14 CO-OWNERS OF THE SAME PROPERTY, AND THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL, AND BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIG H COURT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SEVEN SUCH CO-OWNERS FOR THE SAME PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIN D THAT AS PER THE FACTS NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA-4 OF HIS ORDER, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS OWNED BY 14 CO-OWNERS INCLUDING THE PR ESENT ASSESSEE. OUT ITA NO.3388 /AHD/2010 -3- OF TOTAL 14 CO-OWNERS, IN THE CASES OF SEVEN CO-OWN ERS THE MATTER REACHED TO THE TRIBUNAL AND ALSO BEFORE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, AND THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS APPROVED BY TH E HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. HENCE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE BEFORE US IS CLEARLY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THIS TRIBUNAL, AND DULY A PPROVED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, AND HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY R EASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT ( # ## #. .. .% %% % . .. .&'( &'( &'( &'( /A.K. GARODIA) %) * /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK* C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD