Sh. Sudhir Kumar Mittal, Meerut V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 5014/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0605 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 17-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHLRI K RAVI RAMACHANDRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: V K GOEL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5014/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR MITTAL VS. ITO, WARD 2(3), DURGA BHAVAN, 192, DELHI ROAD, MEERUT. MEERUT. (PAN/GIR NO.- AAVPM3893Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V.K. GOEL, ADV. REVENUE BY : SHLRI K. RAVI RAMACHANDRAN, SR.DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2006-07. THE FOLLOWING G ROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN: 1. THAT THE AO IGNORED THE FACTS THAT RENT PAID BY WINNER PUBLIC SCHOOL AS PER RENT AGREEMENT AND EXECUTED ON 15.01.04 FOR TEN YEARS. THE SAME PREMISES GIVEN ON REN T TO RUN EVENING SCHOOL CLASSES @4,400 PER MONTH. THEREFORE, RENTAL VALUE @4,400X12=48,000+1,000 CANN OT BE SAID LESSER VALUE THEN RENT RECEIVABLE. HENCE, CALCULATION OF IN ALV ON THE BASIS OF STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY CANNOT BE SAID REASONABLE AND CIT(A) IS IN E RROR TO CONFIRMING THE SAME. 2. THAT TO DETERMINE FAIR RENT AO HAS ADOPTED VALUAT ION ON THE BASIS OF STAMP DUTY. HOWEVER, AO IGNORED THE VALUATION OF RENT ON THE BASIS OF MUNICIPAL VALUE, VA LUE ADOPTED BY RENT CONTROL ACT AND RENTAL VALUE ON THE BASIS OF PREMISES GIVEN ON RENT TO AMIT AGARWAL FOR THE SAME YEAR. HENCE, DETERMINATION OF ALV ON THE BASIS OF STA MP VALUATION METHOD IS NEITHER REASONABLE NOR JUSTIFIED. 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) RELY UPON THE FOLLOW ING CASE LAWS CIT VS. KISHAN LAL & SONS, 260 ITR 481 (CAL. & CIT VS. AKSHAY TEXTILES AND AGENCIES (P) LTD., 304 ITR 401 (BOM.), WHICH IS NEITHER CIT(A) CONSIDERED NOR GIVEN ANY ITA NO.5014/DEL./2010 (AY : 2006-07) 2 FINDING. THEREFORE, ORDER OF CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE N ATURE OF PRINCIPLE JUSTICE. 2. AS PER GROUND NO.3, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY F INDING ON THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE AND THIS IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. WE FIND THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE JUSTIFIED . 4. IN THE LAST PORTION OF PARA.4.3 OF THE IMPUGNED O RDER, WHILE NOTING THE ARS SUBMISSION, THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AS UND ER: BESIDES REFERRING TO 252 ITR 87 (STATUTE), THE LD.AR ALSO RELIED ON CERTAIN CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION. 5. IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3, RAISED BEFORE US, TH E ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS HAD BEEN RELIE D ON BEFORE THE CIT(A): 1. CIT VS. KISHAN LAL & SONS, 260 ITR 481 (CAL.); AND 2. CIT VS. AKSHAY TEXTILES TRADING AND AGENCIES (P) LT D., 304 ITR 401 (BOM.). 6. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DISCUSSED THESE CASE LAWS R ELIED ON ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WITHOUT DISCUSSING AS TO HOW THESE ARE NOT RELEVANT. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO T HE FILE OF THE CIT(A), TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ON TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE AFORESAID TWO CASE LAWS RELIED ON ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, I.E., CIT VS. KISHAN LAL & SONS, 260 ITR 481 (CA L.) AND CIT VS. AKSHAY TEXTILES TRADING AND AGENCIES (P) LTD., 304 ITR 401 (BOM.). THE CIT(A) SHALL DECIDE THE MATTER CONSTITUTING GROUN D NOS.1 & 2 BEFORE US IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID CASE LAWS . ITA NO.5014/DEL./2010 (AY : 2006-07) 3 7. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE, THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE OF HEARI NG OF THE APPEAL ITSELF, ON 17.01.2011. SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - (K.D. RANJAN) (K.D. RANJAN) (K.D. RANJAN) (K.D. RANJAN) (A.D. JAIN) (A.D. JAIN) (A.D. JAIN) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: DATED: DATED: DATED: 17.1. 2011. 17.1. 2011. 17.1. 2011. 17.1. 2011. *SKB* *SKB* *SKB* *SKB* COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO:- -- - 1. 1.1. 1. THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE 2. 2.2. 2. THE REVENUE THE REVENUE THE REVENUE THE REVENUE 3. 3.3. 3. THE CIT THE CIT THE CIT THE CIT 4. 4.4. 4. THE CIT (A), MEERUT. THE CIT (A), MEERUT. THE CIT (A), MEERUT. THE CIT (A), MEERUT. 5. 5.5. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAY THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAY THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAY THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. AK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. AK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. AK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME INCOME INCOME INCOME- -- -TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. ITA NO.5014/DEL./2010 (AY : 2006-07) 4