Sh. Manish Malik, Muzaffarnagar V. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 5001/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65347 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 02-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B R R KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL
• Keywords: Value adopted by valuation officer; Opportunity of being heard; Valuation report

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NOS. 4999, 5000, 5001, 5002 & 5003/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4999/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2005-06 SMT. RANBIRI DEVI, 503, PATEL NAGAR, NEW MANDI, MUZAFFARNAGAR -251001 (UP) (PAN: AGRPD8570H) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUZAFFARNAGAR 251001 (UP) I.T.A. NO. 5000/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2005-06 S H. ASHISH MALIK , 503, PATEL NAGAR, NEW MANDI, MUZAFFARNAGAR -251001 (UP) (PAN: AIVPM1464F) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUZAFFARNAGAR 251001 (UP) I.T.A. NO. 5001/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2005-06 SH. MANISH MALIK, 503, PATEL NAGAR, NEW MANDI, MUZAFFARNAGAR -251001 (UP) (PAN: AJFPM8104P) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUZAFFARNAGAR 251001 (UP) I.T.A. NO. 5002/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2005-06 SH. OM SINGH MALIK, 503, PATEL NAGAR, NEW MANDI, MUZAFFARNAGAR -251001 (UP) (PAN: ACKPM7964R) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUZAFFARNAGAR 251001 (UP) I.T.A. NO. 5003/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2007-08 SH. OM SINGH MALIK, 503, PATEL NAGAR, NEW MANDI, MUZAFFARNAGAR -251001 (UP) (PAN: ACKPM7964R) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUZAFFARNAGAR 251001 (UP) (APPELLANT (APPELLANT (APPELLANT (APPELLANTS SS S) )) ) (RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT (RESPONDENTS SS S) )) ) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, SR. D.R. I.T.A. NOS. 4999, 5000, 5001, 5002 & 5003/DEL/2011 2 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER THESE APPEALS BY THE SEPARATE ASSESSEES ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE I SSUES ARE COMMON AND CONNECTED, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THESE ARE BEING CONSOLIDATED BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE. 2. THE COMMON GROUNDS PRESSED IN THESE CASES ARE AS UNDER:- THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY APPLIED THE VALUATION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AS MADE BY DISTR ICT VALUATION OFFICER WHICH IS BASED ON MATERIAL RATES PRESCRIBED BY CPWD. WITH A CONTRACTORS MARGIN OF 1 0% ON SUPPLYING / FIXING/ PROVIDING OF MATERIAL. WHILE T HE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED VALUATION REPORT OF GOVT. AP PROVED VALUER WHO HAS APPLIED PRESCRIBED RATE BY PWD. THAT THE VALUATION SHOULD BE TAKEN ON THE BASIS O F PRESCRIBED RATES OF UPPWD. 3. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06:- THE ASSESSING OFF ICER NOTED THAT IN THE INVESTMENT OF HOUSE FOUR PERSONS ARE PA RTNERS, THEY ARE SH. OM SINGH MALIK (HUSBAND), MANISH MALIK (SON), SH. ASH ISH MALIK (SON) AND SMT. RANBIRI DEVI (ASSESSEE/WIFE). ALL FOUR ASS ESSEES CLAIMED I.T.A. NOS. 4999, 5000, 5001, 5002 & 5003/DEL/2011 3 THAT INVESTMENT MADE IN THIS YEAR IS ` 29,00,000/-. BUT AS PER DVO REPORT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PROPERTY IN THIS YE AR IS AT THE TUNE OF ` 32,07,734/-. THUS, HE OPINED THAT ALL FOUR ASSESSEES HAS CONCEALED THE INVESTMENT OF ` 3,07,734/-. ON BIF URCATION, ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING INVESTM ENT OF FOLLOWING AMOUNTS FROM CONCEALED SOURCES:- RANBIRI DEVI - `87545/- OM SINGH MALIK - ` 53057 ASHISH MALIK - ` 79586/- MANISH MALIK - ` 87545/- 4. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08:- IN THE CASE OF O M SINGH MALIK, ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT SH. OM SINGH MALIK ALONGWITH OTHER ASSESSEES CLAIMED THAT INVESTMENT MADE IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY WAS OF ` 14,68,184/-. BUT ACCORDING TO DVO REPORT THE IN VESTMENT MADE IN THE PROPERTY IN THIS YEAR WAS AT THE TUNE OF ` 16,3 4,211/-. THUS, ALL FOUR ASSESSEES HAS CONCEALED THE INVESTMENT OF ` 1, 66,027/- IN THIS YEAR. ON BIFURCATION, THE ASSESSEE SHRI OM SINGH MA LIKS SHARE WHICH HAS BEEN INVESTED SHORT OF ` 47,855/-. THE SAME WAS ADDED AS INCOME FROM CONCEALED SOURCES. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEES APPEALED B EFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) AND THE LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (A) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION. I.T.A. NOS. 4999, 5000, 5001, 5002 & 5003/DEL/2011 4 6. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEES ARE IN APP EAL BEFORE ME. 7. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED. I FIND THAT IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DVO HAS ESTIMATED THE VALUE BY APPLYING CPWD RATES. HOW EVER, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS THAT IF THE STATE PWD RATES ARE APPLIED, THERE WILL BE NO DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION AS DONE BY THE AS SESSEE AND AS COMPUTED BY THE DVO. I FIND THAT ASSESSEES SUBMISSIO N HAS CONSIDERABLE COGENCY. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE STATE PWD RATES SHOULD BE APPLIED INSTEAD OF CPWD RATE S. ACCORDINGLY, I REMIT THIS ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THE FIVE APPEALS TO THE FILES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER S HALL MAKE A VALUATION ON THE BASIS OF THE STATE PWD RATES AND THEN COMPUTE THE VALUATION. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASSESSEES SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FIVE APPEALS FILED BY TH E RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/9/2012. SD/- [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 07/9/2012 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5.DR, I TAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES