Shri Pankaj Gupta, Chandigarh V. Addl. CIT, Chandigarh

ITA 686/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68486 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILLESH GUPTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, A.M AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM ITA NO. 686/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 PANKAJ GUPTA VS. ADDL C.I.T. RANGE II 610, SECTOR 18-B CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH ABUPG 3629 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AKHILLESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING 3.9.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.9.2013 O R D E R PER T.R.SOOD, A.M THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1.2 .2013 OF THE LD. CIT(A), CHANDIGARH. 2 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS: 1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DECIDING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNIT Y OF HEARING WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL J USTICE AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) HA S ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,99,950/- TREATING THE SALE PRICE OF FLATS TO BE RS. 3300/- PER SQFT A S AGAINST DECLARED AT RS. 1000 IN RESPECT OF TWO FLATS AND R S. 1500 IN RESPECT OF OTHER ON ADHOC BASIS WHICH IS ARBITR ARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURI NG ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS SOLD FOLLOWING PROPERTIES DURING THE YEAR: 2 AREA SALE PRICE 1 FLAT NO. 102 440 SQFT RS. 6,60,000/- ON 12.9.2007 2 FLAT NO. 305 310 SQFT RS. 3,10,000/- ON 11.10.200 7 3 FLAT NO. 312 310 SQFT RS. 3,10,000/- ON 11.10.200 7 4 FLAT NO. G-17 207 SQFT RS. 6,83,100/- ON 6.11.200 7 IT WAS FURTHER NOTICED THAT SALE PRICE OF FLAT ON G ROUND FLOOR WORKS OUT TO RS. 3300 PER SQFT WHEREAS SALE PRICE O F OTHER FLOORS SITUATED ON 2 ND AND 3 RD FLOORS WORKS OUT TO RS. 1000 PER SQFT. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY REGARDING DIFFERENC E IN PRICES NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OF FICER ASSESSED THE SALE PRICE OF ALL THE PROPERTIES AT RS . 3300 PER SQFT. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), NO SUBMISSIO NS WERE MADE, THEREFORE, ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WA S CONFORMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4 BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SALE PRICE IS BASED ON THE ACTUAL PRI CE RECEIVED AND IS SUPPORTED BY THE SALE AGREEMENTS. HE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN THE PRICES OF GROUND FL OOR AND UPPER FLOORS. IN THIS CASE TWO FLATS WERE LOCATED AT 3 RD FLOOR AND ONE FLAT WAS LOCATED AT 2 ND FLOOR. WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT NO SALE AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AT BEST A REASONABLE ES TIMATE CAN BE MADE ABOUT THE SALE PRICE CONSIDERING THE DIFFER ENCE BETWEEN GROUND FLOOR AND UPPER FLOORS. 5 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ST RONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT GROUND FLOOR P ROPERTY IS ALWAYS HAVE HIGHER VALUE PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THE S AME CAN BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. SINCE THERE IS NO EV IDENCE TO 3 PROVE THE HIGHER SALE CONSIDERATION OR EVEN SAME SA LE CONSIDERATION. IN THAT REGARD ONLY COURSE OPEN IS TO ESTIMATE THE SALE PRICE IN RESPECT OF FLATS LOCATED ON THE UPPER FLOORS. CONSIDERING OVER ALL FACTS WE PROPOSE TO ESTIMATE T HE SALE PRICE AT RS. 2000 PER SQFT. THIS PROPOSAL WAS ACCE PTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE SET A SIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK T O THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO ASSESS THE SA LE PRICE OF THE FLATS LOCATED AT 2 ND AND 3 RD FLOORS AT RS. 2000 PER SQFT. 7 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.9.2013 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 20.9.2013 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR