Smt. Dipikaben Rakeshbhai Sopariwala, Surat V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat

ITA 541/SRT/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1918 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C; 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 541/Srt/2018 (AY: 2012-13) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Dipikaben Rakeshbhai Sopariwala, 8/1593 to 1598, Hanuman Char Rasta, Main Road, Gopipura-395002. PAN No. BFHPS 9989 B Vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(2)(1), Surat. Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Appellant represented by None Respondent represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.DR Date of hearing 06/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 06/07/2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 28/05/2018 for the Assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITO Ward 1(2)(1) erred in making an addition of Rs. 7,36,212/- u/s 50C to the total income of the appellant. Further, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-2 also erred in not allowing the appeal of the appellant on this ground with the remark that in spite of several opportunities given, the appellant has not furnished the status of the Town Planning Scheme by SUDA. 2. Further, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITO, Ward 1(2)(1) erred in not allowing the claim of deduction U/s 54F made by the appellant WITHOUT EVEN REFERRING TO THE SAID DISALLOWANCE IN THE AO. Further the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-2 also erred in not allowing the appeal of the appellant on this ground. ITA No. 541/Srt/2018 Dipikaben Rakeshbhai Sopariwala Vs ITO 2 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend alter or delete any other ground or grounds at any time during the pendency of the appeal.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s Radhekrishna Textiles, filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 04/01/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 4,66,170/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee along with her other co-owners sold property admeasuring 10724 sq. mtrs. in block No. 39, R.S. No. 23/2/2 at village Bhanodara, Tal: Choryasi, district-Surat for sale consideration of Rs. 1.286 crore on 14/07/2011. The assessee also sold another property admeasuring 11331 sq. mtrs in block No. 42, R.S. 23/1+2/3 at village Bhanodara, Tal: Choryasi, district-Surat for a sale consideration of Rs. 1.359 crore on 14/07/2011. The assessee was having 1/9 th share in both the properties. The Assessing Officer in order to ascertain certain facts, called details from the assessee. Ongoing through the details, the Assessing Officer noted that for block No. 39, the Jantri value as per stamp duty for the property at R.S. No. 23/2/2 at village Bhanodara, Tal: Choryasi, district- Surat was Rs. 1,60,91,837/-. The assessee has 1/9 share and hence deemed valus of consideration in the hand of assessee is Rs. 17,87,982/-, thereby resulting a difference of Rs. 3,58,123/-. And in respect of property at block No. 42, the Jantri value as per stamp duty for the property at R.S. 23/1+2/3 at village Bhanodara, Tal: Choryasi, district-Surat was Rs. 1,70,00,000/-. The assessee was having 1/9 th share in both the property, hence, the deemed sale consideration in her share is Rs. 18,88,888/- thereby resulting a difference of Rs. ITA No. 541/Srt/2018 Dipikaben Rakeshbhai Sopariwala Vs ITO 3 3,78,089/- and thus, there was a total difference of Rs. 7,36,212/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly issued notice as to why the addition of the difference be not made as per provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee has not furnished any explanation, accordingly, the addition of Rs. 7,36,212/- was made under Section 50C of the Act to the total income of assessee. 3. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the additions were upheld. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition by recording his view that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity but the assessee failed to provide any details or ay submission in support of his claim. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld. The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) also made a claim for exemption under Section 54F of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) recorded that the assessee has not furnished any evidence despite granting several opportunities, accordingly, the grounds of appeal was also dismissed. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. None appeared on behalf of assessee despite the service of notice of hearing of appeal on assessee by way of registered post on more than two occasions. This appeal came up for hearing on 02/07/2021, 14/09/2021, 29/11/2021, 16/02/2022, 28/03/2022, 09/05/2022 and on toady i.e. 06/07/2022. Today neither the assessee nor any Authorised representative has appeared, therefore, we left with no option except to decide the appeal of the assessee on the basis of submission of the learned senior departmental representative (ld. Sr. DR) for ITA No. 541/Srt/2018 Dipikaben Rakeshbhai Sopariwala Vs ITO 4 the Revenue and the material available on record. The ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). the ld DR for the revenue submits that the assessee is habitual in not responding to the notices to the statutory authorities, even the assessee has not responded to the notice of the Tribunal. the assessee has not filed any submissions or documents either before lower authorities or before this Tribunal and the additions made by lower authorities may be upheld. 5. We have considered the submissions of ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. We find that during the assessment the assessee was given opportunity to substantiate his claim, however the assessee filed to make compliance accordingly the assessing officer made the addition under section 50C. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity but the assessee failed to provide any details or any submission in support of his claim. We find that before ld. CIT(A) also made a claim for exemption under Section 54F of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has not furnished any evidence despite granting several opportunities, accordingly, the grounds of appeal was also dismissed. Before us, neither the assessee nor her representative appeared despite the service of notice through RPAD, nor filed any documentary evidences, despite the fact that the appeal was filed in the year 2018 and more than 3½ years time has passed. Therefore, we do not find any reason to deviate ITA No. 541/Srt/2018 Dipikaben Rakeshbhai Sopariwala Vs ITO 5 from the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. 6. In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 06/07/2022, in open court and result was also placed on notice board. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 06/07/2022 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee – 2. Revenue - 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File True copy// By order Sr.Private Secretary, ITAT, Surat