Nand Parkash, Bilaspur V. DCIT, Mandi

ITA 513/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6996 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D N VAIDYA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.513/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI NAND PARKASH, VS. THE DCIT, PARTNER M/S MOHAN TRANSPORT CO., CIRCLE, BILASPUR. MANDI. PAN NO. AGZPP9812G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.N. VAIDYA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDER KANTA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 27.06.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.08.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILIN G THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2016 OF CIT (APPEALS ) PALAMPUR PERTAINING TO 2007-08 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND : THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE BY SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 1 1 ,08,250/- MADE BY THE LD. AO UNDER SECTION 50C (1) COMPLETELY IGNORING THE DULY NOTARIZED AGREEMENT TO SELL. 2. THE LD. AR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT IN AN IDENTICAL AP PEAL OF THE CO-OWNER OF THE SPECIFIC PIECE OF LAND AT MANALI I.E. IN THE CASE OF SHR I VIJAY KUMAR ITA- 07/CHD/2012 WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 02.09.2013. THE SAID ISSUE, IT WAS SUBMITTED, HAS BEEN AGITA TED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT TH E HEARING MAY BE ADJOURNED TO SOME OTHER DATE. 3. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES WERE IDENTICAL AND THE ORDER PASSED ON 02.09.2013 STANDS UNDI STURBED TILL DATE, THE ORAL REQUEST FOR TIME WAS OBJECTED TO BY THE SR.DR SMT. CHANDER KANTA AND IT WAS HER SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER AVAILABLE MAY BE FOLLOWED. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AND TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT T HAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ALSO PERTAINS TO THE VERY SAME LAND AT MANALI WHE REIN THE ITA 513/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE 2 OF 2 ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS WAS A CO-SHARER W ITH HIS BROTHER SHRI VIJAY KUMAR, WHICH ISSUE STANDS DECIDED UPTO THE ST AGE OF THE ITAT. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGE IN FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT AVAILABLE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, WE NOTE HAS TO BE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF SIMILAR REASONS. FOR REA DY REFERENCE, PARA 7 OF THE SAID DECISION, WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED, IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER : 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE AR E UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ID. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE . NO PERSON WOULD AGREE TO SELL HIS PROPERTY IN 2005 WITHOUT RECEIVING SINGLE PENNY TIL L 2007. THE LAND PRICES KEEP ON INCREASING IN THE LONG RUN PARTICULARLY AFTER THE YEAR 200 5, THE PROPERTY PRICES INCREASED SHARPLY ALL OVER LNDIA, THEREFORE, THIS AGREEME NT TO SELL SEEMS TO BE AN AFTER THOUGHT BECAUSE NORMALLY NOBODY WOULD SELL HIS PROPERTY AFTER TWO YEARS WITHOUT RECEIVING SINGLE PENNY AT THE TIME OF ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL. IN ANY CASE THE AGREEMENT HAS NO SANCTITY IN THE EYES OF LAW BECAUSE SUCH AGREEMENT CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY EITHER PARTY IN THE ABSENCE OF CONSIDERATION. UNDER THE CONTRACT ACT, 1872 AN AGREEMENT BECOMES ENFORCEABLE IN THE LAW AND THEN IS CALLED'CONTACT' IF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED: (I) THERE SHOULD BE VALID OFFER AND VALID ACCEPTANCE (II) (II) THERE SHOULD BE SOME CONSIDERATION (III) THERE SHOULD BE CAPACITY TO ENTER THE CONTRAC T I.E. CONTRACT CANNOT BE ENTERED BY A MINOR OR A PERSON WHO IS OF NOT A SOUND MIND. (IV) CONTRACT CAN NOT BE AGAINST LAW OR PUBLIC P OLICY. THERE ARE SOME OTHER CONDITIONS ALSO BUT THEY ARE N OT RELEVANT FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSE. THUS AN AGREEMENT WITHOUT CONSIDERATION IS NOT A VALID AGRE EMENT IN THE EYES OF LAW. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS AN AFTER THOUGHT AND THEREFORE, WE AGREE WITH THE VIEWS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ID. CIT(A) THAT THIS AGREEMENT CANNOT BE RECKONED. AS F AR AS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN REFERRED TO THE VALUATION CELL IS CONCERNED, W E FIND NO FORCE IN THE SAME BECAUSE SECTION 50C CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO RAISE OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING VALUATION. NO SUCH OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED-THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY ADOPTED THE VALUATION DETERMINED BY S TAMP AUTHORITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH AUGUST,2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.