Smt. Suman Bansal, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6760/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4261 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: JS KOCHAR C A SH UDAYBIR SINGH
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: G , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6760 /DEL/201 4 A.Y. 20 09 - 10 SMT. SUMAN BANSAL (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. RAKESH BANSAL) 160, JAGRITI ENCLAVE DELHI 110 092 PAN: AHOPB9178P VS . THE I T O WARD 35(2) NEW DELHI 110 002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. JS KOCHAR, C.A. SH. UDAYBIR SINGH, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SHRI KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING 2 7 /12/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05.01.2018 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER P RESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 10/09/14 PASSED BY LD. CIT (A) - 27, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NO. 6760/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 SMT. SUMAN BANSAL (L/H OF LATE SH RAKESH BANSAL) PAGE 2 OF 12 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ASSUMING JURISDICTION TO RECTIFY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U /S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT,), AS THERE WAS NO 'MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD' WHICH COULD BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SUBSTITUTING THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED IN PLACE OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, IN PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, AS NON - ADOPTION OF THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT A 'MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD' AS IT IS NOT THE ONLY MANNER OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS KNOWN TO LAW AND EVEN SECTION 50C OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR ADOPTION OF SALE CON SIDERATION IN PLACE OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION, IN CERTAIN CASES. 3. THAT THE ALLEGED MISTAKE, IF ANY, COULD BE ESTABLISHED ONLY THROUGH LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING, AFTER REFERRING THE MATTER TO DVO AND OBTAINING HIS REPORT, AND AS SUCH WAS NOT ONE 'APP ARENT FROM RECORD' AND WAS HENCE, OUT OF THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 154 OF THE ACT, AS IT WAS PASSED WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, WHI CH IS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF LAW. 2 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER : A SSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME O N 31/03/10 DECLARING TOTA L INCOME OF RS.4,83,490/ - . A SSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 17.12.11 AC CEPTING RETURNED INCOME DECLAR ED BY ASSESSEE. LD. AO WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.36,79,000/ - AND ITA NO. 6760/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 SMT. SUMAN BANSAL (L/H OF LATE SH RAKESH BANSAL) PAGE 3 OF 12 CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM SALE OF PROPERT Y WAS REFLECTED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN . 2.1 . SUBSEQUENTLY LD. AO OBSERVED FROM THE SALE DEED FILED BY ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE CIRCLE RATE OF PROPERTY SOLD WAS RS. 36,80, 000/ - , WHILE ASSES SEE HAD SHOWED ONLY RS.25,00, 000/ - AS SA LE CONSIDERATION FOR COMPUTING OF CAPITAL GAINS. LD.A O ISSUED SHOW C AUSE NOTICE TO ASSESSEE SEEKING OBJECTIONS IF ANY TO ENHANCE THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE CIRCLE RATE AND THE SALE PRICE . SINCE NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE NEITHER DID ANY ONE REPLY TO THE NOTICE ISSUED, ON THE FIXED DATE OF HEAR ING, LD. AO PASSED RECTIFICATION ORDER UNDER SECTION 154/155 OF THE ACT ON 19/12/13 MAKING ADDITION OF RS.14,10,000/ - BEING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF PROPERTY INSTEAD OF RS.2,30,000/ - AS DECLARED BY ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. 2.2 . AGGRIEVED BY THE RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED BY LD. AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A). LD. CIT (A) DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER: IT IS CLEAR FROM THE RECTIFICATION ORDER THAT THE SALE DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN THE CIRCLE RATE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 36,80,000/ - AND THIS IS NOT CONTESTED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE RECTIFICATION ORDER THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 2,30,000/ - DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS FURTHER CLEAR FROM THE RECTIFICATION ORDER THAT AS SESSING OFFICER HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE CIRCLE RATE OF RS. 36,80,000/ - WHILE ACCEPTING THE CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.2,30,000/ - DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS FURTHER CLEAR FROM THE RECTIFICATION ORDER THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C THE APPELLANT HA D CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 14,10,000/ - AGAINST RS. ITA NO. 6760/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 SMT. SUMAN BANSAL (L/H OF LATE SH RAKESH BANSAL) PAGE 4 OF 12 2,30,000/ - SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CORRECTLY PASSED RECTIFICATION ORDE R UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THUS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 2 & 3 ARE REJECTED. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 3.1. BEFORE US ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED JURISDICTION OF LD.AO IN RECTIFYING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) AS , ASSESSEE IS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE A PPARENT FROM RECORD . THE LD.AR HAS ARGUED THAT THE ALLEGED MISTAKE COULD ONLY BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING AFTE R REFERRING THE MATTER TO DVO. LD. AR ARGUED THAT AS THERE WAS NO REPORT OBTAINED FROM DVO WHICH COULD ESTABLISH NON - AD O PTION OF CIRCLE /MARKET RATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY SOLD, THERE CANNO T BE SAID TO BE ANY MISTAKE APPAR ENT FROM RECORD , AS IT IS NOT THE ONLY MANNER OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS KNOWN TO LAW. 3.2. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 50 C OF THE A CT PROVIDES FOR ADOPTION OF SALE CONSIDERATION IN PLACE OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION IN CERTAIN CASES. IN SUPPORT OF HIS A RGUMENTS LD.AR PLACED RELIANCE UPON FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I. T.S.BALARAM, ITO VS. VOLKART BROTHERS (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) II. SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL VS. CIT - SILIGURI (2015) 372 ITR 83 (CAL.) III. K.R.PALANISAMY AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS (2008) 306 ITR 61 (MAD.) ITA NO. 6760/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 SMT. SUMAN BANSAL (L/H OF LATE SH RAKESH BANSAL) PAGE 5 OF 12 IV. ITO VS. R.V.SHETH & OTHERS ITA 4865/MUM/2011 (ITAT) V. KK NAG LTD. VS. ACIT ITA 1304 & 1305/PN/10 (ITAT) VI. SARWAN KUMAR VS. ITO (2014) 150 ITD 289 (DEL.) VII. NARENDRA DAYABHAI PATEL VS. ITO ITA 2087/AHD./2013 (ITAT) 3.3 . ON THE CONTRARY LD.DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY AGREEMENT OF SALE SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE LD.AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF PROVES THAT VALUE ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSES OF STAMP DUTY WAS LESS THAN THE CIRCLE RATE. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SALE AGREEMENT ITSELF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN MENTIONED WHICH HAS BEEN OVERLOOKED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS DEFINITELY AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD AND LD. AO WAS WRONG IN NOT ADOPTING THE CORRECT VALUATION OF PROPERTY. 3.4 . LD.DR SUBMIT TED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT OBJECT TO THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AVAIL OF THE OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 50C (2) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN TREATING THE VALUE OF IMMOVAB LE PROPERTY AT THE MARKET VALUE/CIRCLE RATE AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY LD. DR THAT R EFERENCE TO DVO IS MADE IN CASE S WHERE ASSESSEE DISPUTES THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY ADOPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A). ITA NO. 6760/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 SMT. SUMAN BANSAL (L/H OF LATE SH RAKESH BANSAL) PAGE 6 OF 12 4. WE HA VE PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOT H THE SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US , AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY LD.AR. 4.1 . ADMITTEDLY IN THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE , ASSESSEE IS NOT AT ALL DISPUTING THAT THE MARK ET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS HIGHER THA N THE VALUE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY LD.AR ARE DEALT WITH AS UNDER: 1 . FACTS BEFORE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T.S.BALRAM (ITO) VS. VOLKART BROTHERS (SUPRA) WAS WHETHER ON THE FACTS, SLAB RATE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS INCORRECT AS LD. AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS A PERSON AS PER SECTION 17 (1) OF I NCOME TAX A CT, 1922. HON BLE SUPREME COURT OBSE RVED THAT THE ISSUE THEREIN WAS DEBATABLE AND IT FELL OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. 2 . THE NEXT DECISION RELIED UPON BY LD.AR IS I N THE CASE OF SUNIL KUMAR AGGARWAL VERSUS CIT REPORTED IN 372 ITR 83 (CAL) . THIS CASE DO NOT IN ANY WAY ADVAN CE THE CASE OF ASSESSEE . IN TH IS CASE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THAT VALUATION ADOPTED BY STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION WAS FAR IN EXCESS OF M ARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AND THEREFORE LD.AO THEREIN COULD NOT HAVE MADE ANY CHANGE S IN THE VALUATION , WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE DVO. IN OTHER WORDS THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY LD.AO WAS ITSELF DISPUTED BY ASSESSEE THEREIN. 3 . THE NEXT CASE RELIED UPON BY LD.A R IS OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ITO VS. R.V.SETH & ORS IN ITA NO. 4865/MUM/2011 FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. IN THIS CASE TH E ASSESSEE THEREIN ITA NO. 6760/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 SMT. SUMAN BANSAL (L/H OF LATE SH RAKESH BANSAL) PAGE 7 OF 12 HAS SURRENDERED TENANCY RIGHTS TO VALUE WHICH WAS LESS THAN THE MARKET PRICE. TRIBUNAL HAD OBSERVED THAT AS THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT REGISTERED ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE ARRIVED AT THE CORRECT M ARKET VALUE WITHOUT REFERRING THE SAME TO THE DVO. IT WAS ON THESE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE T RIBUNAL HELD THAT THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR RECTIFICATION EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE DID NOT OBJECT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS ON ISSUANCE OF NOTICE. 4 . THE NEXT DECISION RELIED UPON BY LD.AR IS IN THE CASE OF K.R.PALANISAMY & ORS. VS. UOI & ORS. , REPORTED IN 306 ITR 616 PASSED BY HON BL MADRAS HIGH COURT. IN THIS CASE HON BLE C OURT DECIDED CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 50 C OF THE A CT. IN THE FACTS PRESENT BEFORE US, THERE IS NO SUCH CHALLENGE REGARDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 50 C OF THE A CT. 5 . THE NEXT DECISION RELIED UPON BY LD.AR IS AN UNDERREPORTED DECISION PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF K.K.NAG LTD., VS, ACIT , IN ITA NO 1304 & 1305/PN/2010 & 1298/PN/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07. T HE T RIBUNAL IN THIS CASE WAS DEALING WITH THE GRIEVANCE OF ASSESSEE WHERE LD.AO ADOPTED STAMP DUTY VALUE OF LAND AND BUILDING AS TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS TAXES WITHOUT REFERENCE BEING MADE TO DVO , SPECIALLY WHEN ASSESSEE HAD OBJECTED TO THE SAME. T RIBUNAL UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES OBSERVED THAT IT WAS EVIDENT THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ITSELF REGARDING THE VALUE ADOPTED BY STAMP ITA NO. 6760/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 SMT. SUMAN BANSAL (L/H OF LATE SH RAKESH BANSAL) PAGE 8 OF 12 VALUATION AUTHORITY EXCEEDING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER AS PROVIDED UN DER SECTION 50 C (2)(A) OF THE A CT. T RIBUNAL THUS CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SUPPOSED TO REFER THE MATTER TO DVO. 6 . THE NEXT CASE RELIED UPON BY LD. AR IS IN CASE OF SARVAN KUMAR VS. ITO REPORTED IN (2014) 150 ITD 289. THE T RIBUNAL IN THIS CASE HAD DECIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE VALUE OF LAND AND BUILDING ASSESSED BY STAMP VALUATION AU THORITY EXCEEDS FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY THEN IN TERMS OF SECTION 50 C (2) (A) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO VALUATION OFFICER INSTEAD OF STRAIGHTAWAY DEEMING THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AUTHO RITY AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION. 7 . THE NEXT CASE RELIED UPON B Y LD.AR IS PASSED BY THE T RIBUNAL IN CASE OF NARENDRA DAYABHAI PATEL VS . ITO, IN ITA NO. 2087/AHD/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. ON PERUSAL OF THIS DECISION IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN THIS CASE T RIBUNAL REMANDED THE ISSUE BACK TO LD. AO , AS EVEN AFTER REPEATED REQUEST BY ASSESSEE THEREIN , THE MATTER WAS NOT REFERRED TO DVO FOR THE PURPOSES OF VALUATION. 4.2 . IN THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED REGARDING THE VALUE ADOPTED FOR THE P URPOSES OF STAMP DUTY BEING LESS THAN THE MARKET VALUE AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE OF ANY HELP TO ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND THIS DECISION RELIED UPON BY LD.AR TO BE OF ANY HELP TO ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 6760/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 SMT. SUMAN BANSAL (L/H OF LATE SH RAKESH BANSAL) PAGE 9 OF 12 4.3. THUS, IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS WARRANTED IN RESPECT OF EACH PRECEDENT RELIED UPON BY LD.A.R. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE FACTS OF THE QUOTED CASE ARE ENTIRELY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 17.12.2 011 UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD AT RS. 36,79,000/ - WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS: 2. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE DERIVE D INCOME FROM M/S BANSAL PLYWOOD CO. AS PER AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.2,00,000/ - IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND SOLD IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.36,79,000/ - . THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. T HE AR HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PROPERTY HAS DULY BEEN REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND CASH DEPOSITS WERE FROM SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. 5.1 . IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY AFTER AUDIT SCRUTINY THAT LD.AO SOUGHT TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE THAT HAS CREPT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY ISSUING NOTICE TO ASSESSEE. FURTHER ASSESSEE HAS NEVER OBJECTED IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER REGARDING VALUATION OF PROPERTY ON WHICH THE STAMP DUTY HAS BEEN PAID TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE MARKET VALUE, EITHER IN THE RETURN OR AS REPLY TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY ASSESSEE DURING THE RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS. ASSESSEE CANNOT NOW TAKE THE PLEA THAT BEFORE INITIATING RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS THE MATTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO DVO. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THERE ITA NO. 6760/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 SMT. SUMAN BANSAL (L/H OF LATE SH RAKESH BANSAL) PAGE 10 OF 12 WAS MISTAKE APP ARENT FROM RECORD AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE BELIEF THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE WAS RS.36,79,000/ - WHICH IS VERY MUCH CL EAR FROM PARA 2 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. FURTHER THE CORRECT MARKET VALUE HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED DATED 06.05.2008 WHICH IS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US . P AGE 2 OF AGREEMENT VERY CLEARLY SHOWS THE MARKET VALUE/CIRCLE RATE OF THE PROPERTY BEING RS. 36, 80 ,000/ - AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION REC EIVED BY ASSESSEE BEING RS.25,00, 000/ - . ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 5 T H JANUARY, 2018. S D / - S D / - (N.K.SAINI) (BEENA A PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 0 5 T H JANUARY, 2018 *MV ITA NO. 6760/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 SMT. SUMAN BANSAL (L/H OF LATE SH RAKESH BANSAL) PAGE 11 OF 12 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI ITA NO. 6760/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 SMT. SUMAN BANSAL (L/H OF LATE SH RAKESH BANSAL) PAGE 12 OF 12 S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON DRAGON 27/12/17 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER