HARSHADRAI K DOSHI, MUMBAI V. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5009/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100535 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 13-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN ,AM AND LALIT KUMAR, JM ./ I.T.A. NO 5009 / MUM/20 14 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 7 - 08 ) SHRI HARSHADRAI K DOSHI, 323, HIMALAYA HOUSE, 79 PALTON ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI - 400001 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1 2(1)(2 ), MUMBAI . ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AACPD1617N / APPELLANT BY NONE / RSPONDENT BY SHRI MOURYA PRATAP / DATE OF HEARING : 13 .8 . 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13 . 8. 201 5 / O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, A M: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 10.2. 2014 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) - 10 , MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 08. 2. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK UN - SERVED BY THE POSTA L AUTHORITIES. WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT DEFECTS IN THE APPEAL MEMO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THOUGH THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAY BACK IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 2014, TILL DATE, THE DEFECTS HAVE NOT BEEN RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE . H ENCE THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE AS UN - ADMITTED. ITA NO. 5009 / MUM/20 14 2 3. ON FACTS, WE NOTICE THAT THE DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF VALUATION DETERMINED BY THE STAMP AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AS P ER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.50C OF THE ACT . WE NOTICE THAT THE AO HAS FOLLOWED THE ABOVE SAID PROVISIONS AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A ) WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED AN Y MA TERIAL TO SHOW AS TO WHY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE . UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) . ACCORDINGLY , WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 13TH AUGUST 2015. 13 TH AUGUST, 2015 SD SD ( LALIT KUMAR) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 13TH AU G , 2015 . . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI