DCIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Daljit Kaur Majithia, New Delhi

ITA 5780/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 578020114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ALOK KUMAR MITTAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Valuation report
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JM AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARIS HI, AM ITA NO. 5780/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 40(1) NEW DELHI VS DALJIT KAUR MAJITHIA J-305, SOM VIHAR APARTMENTS, R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN : AKAPK8220G ASSESSEE BY SHRI ALOK KUMAR MITTAL, CA REVENUE BY SHRI SUJIT KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :14.10.2015 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT (A) XXX, NEW DELHI DATED 22.8.2013 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN:- 1. DIRECTING THE AO TO ACCEPT INDEXED COST AT RS. 24,3 00/- PER CANAL AS ON 01.04.1981 WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROVISION OF RULE 46A AND WITHOUT ALLOWING THE OPPORTUNITY TO A.O. UNDER RULE 46A FOR PROPER E NQUIRY. 2. ENHANCING THE INDEX COST FROM RS. 15,000/- TO RS. 2 4,300/- PER CANAL AS ON 01.04.1981 WHEREAS SO CALLED APPROVED VALUERS REPO RT WAS NOT BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT AND THE A.O. TOOK THE RA TE OF RS. 15,000/- ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OF ITO WARD 2(3), BATALA, PUNJ AB, WHERE THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF PURCHASER. 02. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS SOLD SOME LAND BUT IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER IN THE ORIGINA L RETURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS ISSUED AND AO VIDE AS SESSMENT ORDER DATED 20 TH DECEMBER, 2011 PASSED U/S 144 RWS148OF THE ACT MADEAN ADDITI ON OF RS. 23,62,132/- AS LONG TERM ITA NO. 5780/DEL/2013 DALJIT KAUR MAJITHIA AY: 2004-05 2 CAPITAL GAIN. WHILE COMPUTING LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAI N, AO TOOK THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 1.4.1981 @ RS. 15,000/- PER CANAL BASED ON THE INFO RMATION RECEIVED FROM ITO WARD 2(3), BATALA, PUNJAB. BASED ON THIS OUT OF TOTAL SALE CON SIDERATION OF RS.52,22,000/- AO GRANTED DEDUCTION OF RS 28,57,868/- AS INDEX COST OF ACQUI SITION AFTER TAKING RATE OF LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS. 15,000/- PER CANAL AND THEREBY DERI VING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 23,62,132/-. ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF A O IN ESTIMATING COST OF ACQUISITION PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A). LD. CIT (A) BAS ED ON THE REPORT OF AUTHORISED VALUER HAS DIRECTED AO TO TAKE THE VALUE OF LAND AS ON 1.4 .1981 AT THE RATE OF RS. 24,300/- PER CANAL AGAINST RS 15000/- PER CANAL ADOPTED BY AO. A GAINST THIS REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 03. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ADMI TTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF REPORT OF AUTHORISED VALUER WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROVISIO NS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 AND THEREFORE THE MATTER SHOULD BE SET A SIDE TO THE FILE OF AO. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT POINT OUT BEFORE US THAT WHETHER THE VALUATION REPORT WAS SENT TO AO FOR REMAND REPORT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER AO WAS GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 04. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND FROM THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, IT IS APPARENT THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY DETAILS B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, BEFORECIT (A) ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE VALUATION REPORT OF AUTHORISED VALUER ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF THE LAND AS AT 1-4-1981 AT THE RATE OF RS. 24,300/- PER CANAL AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IT IS ALSO APPARENT THAT CIT (A) HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A (3) WHEREIN HE SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY TO AO TO EXAMINE THE NEW EVIDENCES OR DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. T HEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ORDER OF CIT (A) IS SE T ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILEOF AO WITH DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENC ES SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE AND AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE DECIDE ISSUEON MERIT. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL OF REVENUE I S ALLOWED. 05. GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST THE ADOPTION OF INDEX COST OF RS. 15,000/- ADOPTED BY AO AGAINST WHICH CIT (A) HAS DIRECTED TO ADOPT RS. 24,300/- BA SED ON THE REPORT OF AUTHORISED VALUER. ITA NO. 5780/DEL/2013 DALJIT KAUR MAJITHIA AY: 2004-05 3 HOWEVER IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN GROUND NO 1 WHER E IN WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO, THIS GROUND DOES NOT REQUIRE TO BE ADJUDICATED. 06. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14/10/ 2015) SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14/10/2015 *B. RUKHAIYAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT A 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(APPEALS) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 5780/DEL/2013 DALJIT KAUR MAJITHIA AY: 2004-05 4 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 09/10/2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 09/10/2015 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.