Sarita Sangam Society, Vadodara V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

ITA 3562/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8353 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH SINGH HEARING CONCLUDE
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITI SHETH
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.3562/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY JM] ITA NO.3562/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SARITA SANGAM SOCIETY, ..................APPELLANT 10, BADSAHNAGAR SOCIETY, OPP. AKOTA VILLAGE, AKOTA, VADODARA 390 020. [PAN : AAFAS 2477 K] VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA. ............................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY ADITI SHETH FOR THE APPELLANT SAURABH SINGH FOR THE RESPONDENT HEARING CONCLUDED ON: 09.05.2018 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 16.05.2018 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2016, PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN T HE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013. 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IN SUBSTANCE IS AGAIN ST LEARNED CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.30,58,775/- UNDER SECTION 50C, IN A DOPTING SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS. 3. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL LIES IN A NARROW COMPASS OF MATERIAL FACTS. DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE IS SAID TO HAV E SOLD, BY WAY OF A PUBLIC AUCTION, A PLOT OF LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.18,80,000/-. WHILE THE AUCTION IS SAID TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON 27.02.2011, THE ACTUAL SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 02.07.2011. WHILE ITA NO.3562/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PAGE 2 OF 3 FINALIZING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING O FFICER NOTED THAT THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF THE SAID PLOT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYM ENT OF STAMP DUTY FOR REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED, WAS RS.49,52,545/-. WHEN ASSESSEE WAS CO NFRONTED WITH THIS FACT, HE PRODUCED A VALUATION REPORT, CONFIRMING THE VALUE O F PLOT AT RS.18,80,000/- FROM A REGISTERED VALUER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BRUSHED AS IDE THE CLAIM AND PROCEEDED TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT BY ADOPTING DEEMED SALE CONSID ERATION AT RS.49,52,545/- . AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BU T WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, AND DECLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FU RTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 5. AS A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 50C(2) SHOWS, WHE N THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASS ESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE O F THE PROPERTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE DEPA RTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. CLEARLY, THEREFORE, A SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER IS NOT AT ALL REQUIRED TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, AND ALL TH AT IS REQUIRED TO INVOKE THE REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER IS A DISPUTE BEING RAISED ON VALUATION AS PER STAMP DUTY VALUATION AUTHORITY. IN ANY EVENT, AS I S THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION IN THE LIGHT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CA SE OF SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL VS. CIT (GA NO.3686/2013; JUDGEMENT DATED 13 TH MARCH 2014) EVEN IN A CASE WHERE NO SUCH PRAYER IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, DISCHARGING A QUASI JUDICIAL FUNCTION HAS THE BOUNDEN DUTY TO ACT FAIRLY AND TO GIVE A FAIR TREATMENT BY GIVING HIM AN OPTION TO FOLLOW THE COURSE PROVIDED BY THE LAW. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO REFER THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER, AND TO FRAME THE FR ESH ASSESSMENT IN THE LIGHT OF, INTER ALIA, DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICERS REPORT, IN A CCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND BY WA Y OF A SPEAKING ORDER. THE MATTER THUS STANDS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 6. AS WE PART WITH THE MATTER, WE MAY ADD THAT THER E IS APPARENTLY ALSO A DISPUTE WITH RESPECT OF THE POINT OF TIME AS TO WHICH STAMP DUTY VALUATION IS TO BE ADOPTED - AT THE POINT OF TIME WHEN AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS FINALI ZED OR WHEN SALE DEED WAS ITA NO.3562/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PAGE 3 OF 3 REGISTERED. THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS NOT REALLY RELEVANT AT PRESENT AS THE MATTER STANDS RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PU RPOSE OF DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICERS VALUATION. HOWEVER, SUFFICE TO ADD, WHILE EXAMINING THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT BINDIN G JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON THE ISSUE, INCLUDING IN THE CASE OF DHARMASHI BHAI SONANI VS. ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (AHD)]. WE LEAVE IT THAT FOR THE TIME BEING. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES FOR IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON T HIS 16 TH DAY OF MAY, 2018. SD/- SD/- MS. MADHUMITA ROY PRAMOD KUMAR JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER) DATED: 16 TH MAY, 2018. PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDE NT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD