PETIMA PANWAR, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 555/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 55523114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: G M MEHTA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Salary income; Fair market value; Valuation report; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 2(14); 139(5)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 555/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SMT. PRATIMA PANWAR F-135, RAM NAGAR, EXT. SODALA, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. I.T.O. WARD 3(4), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AKCPP 2010 P VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.M. MEHTA (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJ MEHRA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 11/08/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/09/2015 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER: SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 11/04/2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A)-BIKANER (C AMP AT JAIPUR) FOR A.Y. 2008-09. 2. THE TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE AS UNDER:- 1 LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DISCUSSING BUT NOT DISPOSING OF THE GROUND NO. (1) OF APPEAL WHICH READ S AS UNDER: ITA 555/JP/2013_ PRATIMA PANWAR VS. ITO 2 LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN LEVYING CAPITAL GAIN TAX ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH FALL S WITHIN PANCHAYAT AND CANNOT BE REGARDED AS FALLING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 2(14) OF IT ACT (211 ITR 897). 2. LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DECIDING THE I SSUE OF ADOPTION OF WRONG DLC RATE OF RS. 1,13,64,920/- B Y DVO AS AGAINST DLC RATE OF RS. 1,03,80,000/- FOR TH E PURPOSE OF SECTION 50C OF IT ACT WHICH RESULTED IN HIGHER VALUATION BY DVO AT 75,00,847/- AFTER ALLOWIN G DEDUCTION OF @ 34% FOR THE DEFECTS OF SOLD AGRICULTU RAL LAND ON SAID HIGHER DLC VALUE ADOPTED AT RS. 1,13,64,920/- 3. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS NOT PRESSED, THEREFORE , WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AS NOT PRESSED. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FI LED THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 14-07-2009 AT RS. 3, 40,790/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM SALARY AND INTEREST F ROM BANK. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SCRUTINIZED U/S 143(3) OF T HE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE LAND AT VILLAGE PEEPLA BHARAT SINGH, SANGANER, DISTT. JAIPUR ON 23-06-2007 FOR RS. 1,03,80,000/- ( ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER SALE DEED WAS AT RS. 72,11,000/ -). THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ANY CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PROPE RTY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE AO GAVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON T HIS ISSUE WHICH WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 11-08- 2010 AND THE SAME ITA 555/JP/2013_ PRATIMA PANWAR VS. ITO 3 HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE AO AT PAGES 1 AND 2 IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE REVISED RETURN ON 11-08-2010 DISCLOSING THEREIN SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 8 ,86,800/- BUT AS PER THE AO THE RETURN REVISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BEYO ND TIME PRESCRIBED AND IT WAS NOT AS PER SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT. THE REFORE, THE AO TREATED THE REVISED RETURN AS NONEST. THE STAMP AUT HORITY HAS TAKEN THE VALUE OF THIS AGRICULTURAL LAND AT RS. 1,03,80,000/ -. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALUATION MADE BY THE STAMP AUTHORITY FOR REGISTRATION PURPOSES BEFORE THE AO. THE AO REFERRE D THE IMPUGNED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR VALUATION BEFORE THE DVO . T HE DVO HAD PROPOSED ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE SAID LAND AT RS. 1, 13,64,920/- WHO IN THE REVISED VALUATION AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSE E'S OBJECTION ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF THIS SAID PROPERTY AT RS. 75 ,00,847/-. THUS THE AO CALCULATED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AFTER CONSIDE RING THE REVISED ESTIMATED VALUE I.E. RS. 75,00,847/- OF THE PROPER TY AT RS. 11,76,647/-. 4.1 BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASS ESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAD DISMISSED THE AS SESSEE'S APPEAL BY OBSERVING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO IS BASED ON FAIR VALUE / COST DETERMINED BY THE DVO WHO HAS DETERMINE D THE SAME AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA 555/JP/2013_ PRATIMA PANWAR VS. ITO 4 WRITING AND /OR IN PERSONS AND ALSO AFTER HAVING CON SIDERED THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DVO HAS RIGH TLY ESTIMATED THE VALUE AS TAKEN BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) S USTAINED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4.2 NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERI NG THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND ESTIMATED/ VALUED B Y AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN PART ONLY AT RS. 7 5,00,847/- AS AGAINST ACTUAL SALE VALUE OF RS. 72,11,000/-. THE ASSESSEE H AD RAISED CERTAIN POINTS REGARDING DEFECTS/ SHORTCOMING IN LAND SOLD AND NOT CONSIDERED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR. THE DVO AFTER CONSIDERING THES E DEFECTS/ SHORTCOMINGS ALLOWED DEDUCTION IN VIOLATION OF SOLD PROPERTY IN PART ONLY IN HIS VALUATION REPORT DATED 13-12-2010. FROM THE PROPOSED VALUATION, IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED FROM THE VALUE OF CONSIDERATION ADOPTED STAMP AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, HE CALCULATED THE FAIR MARK ET VALUE AT RS. 68,50,800/-. THUS THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE REQUEST ED TO ACCEPT THE SALE CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4.3 AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) . ITA 555/JP/2013_ PRATIMA PANWAR VS. ITO 5 4.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS PER SECTION 50 C, THE ASSES SEE CHALLENGED THE VALUATION OF SAID IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEFORE THE AO AS THE STAMP AUTHORITY HAS TAKEN THE VALUATION OF THE SAID LAND AT RS.1,03,80,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO REFERRED THIS ISSUE TO THE DVO WHO HAS ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF SAID LAND AT RS. 75,00,847/- AS PER L AW. THE AO CALCULATED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY APPLYING THE SAME VA LUATION. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR ARE THAT AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT THAT 34% DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED FROM THE VALUATION DONE BY THE STAMP AUTHORITY I.E. RS. 1,04,80.000/-. THUS IN VIEW OF T HE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS SUSTAINED. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED ON THIS GROUND.. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/09/2015. SD/- SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH VH-VKJ-EHUK (R.P.TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 07 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 *RANJAN ITA 555/JP/2013_ PRATIMA PANWAR VS. ITO 6 VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- MRS. PRATIMA PANWAR, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 3(4), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 555/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR