Pavan Jagdish Tourani , Secunderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

ITA 363/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0771 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M MURTHY NAIK
• Assessee Lawyers: LAXMINIWAS SHAR MA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Period of limitation; Valuation report; Time period of passing order; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 148; 6

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A - SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.363/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 PAVAN JAGDISH TOURANI, SECUNDERABAD. PAN: ADFPT 3974 L VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 10(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI LAXMI NIWAS SHARMA REVENUE BY: SRI M. MURTHY NAIK, DR DATE OF HEARING: 23/01/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09 /06/2020 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD, DATED 28/02/2019 IN APPEAL NO. 10186/2016 - 17/B1 CIT(A) - 6 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S147 & 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL G ROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE LD. A.O. WHO HAD MADE ADDITION TOWARDS CAPITAL GAINS FOR RS. 16,48,728/ - . 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDU AL FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 10/02/2009 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,33,220/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD 2 A N IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEARING MCH NO.3 - 4 - 207/A/1, ADMEASURING 158 SQ. YDS AT LINGAMPALLY, HYDERABAD FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 20 LAKHS AGAINST WHICH THE MARKET VALUE FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE WAS RS. 33,88,000/ - AS EVIDENT FROM D.C. NO. 37/2008 DATED 05/11/2008. HENCE, NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE RESPONDED BY FILING COPY OF THE RETURN ON 10/02/2009. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED VALUATION REPORT OF THE PROPERTY SOLD. HOWEVER, THE LD. A.O. REJECTED THE SAME AS IT WAS VALUED BY A PRIVATE REGISTERED VALUER AND THEREAFTER, HE I NVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND ASSESSED THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 16,48,728/ - . WHEN THE MATER CROPPED UP BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. CIT(A) AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE , REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE LD. A. O , FOR OBTAINING THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE LD. DVO . HOWEVER IT APPEARS FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. DVO FOR THE VALUATION OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. A.O. RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HIGHER JUDICIARY. 4. AT THE OUTSET, LD . AR PLEADED BEFORE US THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO PURSUE HIS CASE BECAUSE FACTUALLY THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY 50% SHARE IN THE PROPERTY SOLD AND MOREOVER THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS MUCH LOWER THAN THE VALUE FIXED BY THE STATE REGI STRATION AUTHORITY. THE LD. AR FURTHER 3 SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE PRESENT BEFORE THE LD. DVO. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR AND PLEADED FOR CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD. RE VENUE AUTHORITIES. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROPERLY CO - OPERATED BEFORE THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES AT THE TIME OF PROCEEDINGS BEFOR E THEM. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO APPARENT THAT THE LD. A.O. HAD PASSED ORDER IN THE FAG END OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD AND HE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO OBTAIN THE VALUATION REPORT FROM THE LD. DVO. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLEADED BEFORE US THAT HE HAD ONLY 50% SHARE IN THE PROPERTY HOWEVER, THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS ASSESSED IN HIS HANDS. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENTIRE MATTER HAS TO BE REVISITED AND CONSIDERED BY THE LD. A.O. AFRESH AFTER OBTAINING VALUATION REPORT FROM THE LD. DVO. HENCE, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. A.O. FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION. I ALSO HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES FA ILING WHICH THEY SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS BASED ON THE MATERIALS BEFORE THEM. 4 6. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED AFTER 90 DAYS OF HEARING THE APPEAL WHICH IS THOUGH AGAINST THE USUAL NORMS, I FIND IT APPROPRIATE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE EXTRA - ORDINARY SITUATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE LOCK - DOWN DUE TO COVID - 19 PANDEMIC. WHILE DOING SO , I HAVE RELIED IN THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. JSW LTD. IN ITA NO.6264/M/2018 AND 6103/M/2018 FOR AY 2013 - 14 ORDER DATED 14TH MAY, 2020. 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 TH JUNE, 2020. SD / - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 09 TH JUNE, 2020 OKK COPY TO: - 1) PAVAN JAGDISH TOURANI, C/O. LAXMINIWAS & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, D.NO.6 - 3 - 569, 4 TH FLOOR, OPPOSITE RTA OFFICE, ABOVE BMW SHOWROOM, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD. 2) ITO, WARD - 10(1), 627, 6 TH FLOOR, B - BLOCK, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT (A) - 6, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 6, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6) GUARD FILE