ITO, Jaipur V. RUPALI DHINGRA, Jaipur

ITA 614/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5318 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDARTH RANKA ADV DHK
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Tax effect

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 VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF; D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 614/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR. CUKE VS. ROOPALI DHINGRA, S-51, BEHIND JAI CLUB, ARVIND MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AJXPD 9878 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI KAILASH MANGAL (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SIDDARTH RANKA (ADV) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 31/03/2016. MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/03/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 31/3/2015 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2008-09 WHEREIN THE REVENUE RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING TO ADOPT FULL VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 1,56,39,110/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST RS. ITA NO.614/JP/2015 ITO VS. ROOPALI DHINGRA 2 1,67,52,562/- VALUED BY THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFI CER U/S 50C. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING TO ADOPT COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01/4/2981 AT RS. 6,25,833/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST RS. 1,25,181/- ADOPT BY THE A.O. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE DE MAND/ TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUE IN QUESTION IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 7,24, 270/-. UNDER THE POWERS VESTED BY SEC. 268A(1) OF THE I T ACT, CBDT HA S RECENTLY ISSUED CIRCULARNO.21 OF 2015 DATED 10.12.2015(F NO. 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ(PT) INSTRUCTING THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE ITAT WHERE THE DEMAND/TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED LESS THAN RS. 10 LACS. THE CIRCULAR IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED TO BE APPLICABLE FOR ALL PENDING APPEALS. 3. SUBJECT TO SOME EXCEPTIONS, IT IS FURTHER DIREC TED BY CBDT THAT ALL THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS PENDING BEFORE ITAT WHE RE THE DEMAND/TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN 10 LACS SHOULD BE EI THER WITHDRAWN OR NOT PRESSED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES. ITA NO.614/JP/2015 ITO VS. ROOPALI DHINGRA 3 4. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT COVERED BY ANY EXCEPTIO NS MENTIONED IN THE SAID CBDT CIRCULAR. SINCE THE TAX DEMAND IN D ISPUTE IN THIS DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS BELOW THE LIMIT SET OUT BY CB DT FOR THE APPEAL THE SAME IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF FORE GOINGS. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSE D/WITHDRAWN. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/03/2016. SD/- SD/- YFYR DQEKJ VH-VKJ-EHUK (LALIET KUMAR) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 31 ST MARCH, 2016 RANJAN* VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- SMT. ROOPALI DHINGRA, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 614/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR