ITO, New Delhi V. Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, New Delhi

ITA 3845/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8852 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 26-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T P CHANDRAKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH VYAS
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Fair market value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3845/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 ITO, WARD 46(1), NEW DELHI. VS. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH, A - 2, PARK VIEW APARTMENTS, ROHTAK ROAD, NEW DELHI. AAPTS7773B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. T.P. CHANDRAKAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SH. YOGESH VYAS, CA DATE OF HEARING: 26/02/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: O R D E R PER I.C. SUD HIR, J.M. THE REVENUE HAS QUESTIONED THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON SEVERAL GROUNDS, WHEREBY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,32,988/ - MADE BY THE AO INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PROPERTY IN MUMBAI FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 18 LAKHS BUT THE PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED AT RS. 31,16,988/ - . THE AO TREATING THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 31,16,988/ - MADE THE ADDITION OF AMOUNT IN DIFFERENCE I.E. R S. 13,16,988/ - (RS. 31,16,988/ - RS. 18,00,000/ - ) ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED SALES CONSIDERATION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE REGISTERED VALUERS ITA NO. 3845/D/2013 MR. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH 2 REPORT AND MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS. 84,000/ - (RS. 18,84,000/ - - RS. 18,00,000/ - ) TO THE RETURN INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE. 3. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO U/S 50C OF THE ACT WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUE AUTHORITY WHICH WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REASONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DISTRESS SALE IS NO T BASED ON ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE. 4. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND, TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER. HE REITERATED SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS LOWER THAN THE VALUE AS TAKEN FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE AND HAD ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS RS. 18 LACS WHICH WAS THE ACTUAL SALE PRICE. IN SUPPORT THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE APPROVED VALUER WAS SUBM ITTED WHICH WAS SAME AS DECALRED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR FROM THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN IN SUB - SECTION (2) TO SECTION 50C OF THE ACT THAT IN A CASE WHERE ASSESSEE CL AIMS BEFORE THE AO THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER, THE AO MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER. ITA NO. 3845/D/2013 MR. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH 3 6. ADMITTEDLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER HENCE IT WOULD HAVE BEE N PROPER ON THE PART OF THE AO TO REFER THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY IN DISPUTE TO A VALUATION OFFICER AND SHOULD HAVE ACTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN U/S 50C OF THE ACT. IGNORING THIS ASPECT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ACCEPT THE APPROVED VALUERS REPORT FOR THE VALUATION WHILE HOLDING THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO OF THE RESPECTIVE AREA FOR THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY. WE, THUS, WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW REMAND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO OF THE RESPECTIVE AREA FOR DETERMINING THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH ON THE BASIS OF THAT VALUATION AS PER THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN U/S 50C OF THE ACT AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE GROUNDS ON THE ISSUE ARE THUS, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/02/2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( R.S. SYAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( I.C. SUDHIR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27/02/2015 *KAVITA ITA NO. 3845/D/2013 MR. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH 4 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 3845/D/2013 MR. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH 5 SL. NO. DESCRIPTI ON DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 27.02.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 27.02.2015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 27.02.2015 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 27.02.2015 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 27.02.2015 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 27.02.2015 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 27.02.2015 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER