Smt Urmila Dhanotia, Indore V. ITO2(3), INDORE

ITA 691/Ind/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1248 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Revised return; Set aside

Judgement Text

SMC URMILA DHANOTIA ITA 691 OF 2018 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 691/IND/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 SMT. URMILA DHANOTIA, INDORE PAN ABLPD 3569 K :: APPELLANT VS ITO-2(3), INDORE :: RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI K.C. AGRAWAL, CA RESPONDENT BY SHRI V.J. BORICHA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 06.3.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15.3.2019 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, INDORE, DATED 18.5.2018 ON THE GROUND THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.24,02,000/- U/S 56(2)(VII) MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCH ASED AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AT RS.33 LACS. THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY HAD ADOPTED TR ANSACTION VALUE AT RS.57,02,000/- OF THE SAID LAND FOR VALUATION. THER EFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASKED WHY THIS DIFFERENCE AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE TREA TED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HER CONSULTANT FILED REPLY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AGREE WITH THE REPLY AND MADE THE A DDITION OF DIFFERENCE AMOUNT I.E. RS.24,02,000/- U/S 56(2)(VII) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT . BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO ALSO CONF IRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT BEING QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SMC URMILA DHANOTIA ITA 691 OF 2018 2 ASSESSEE HAS CHANGED THE STAND AND SHE FAILED TO PR OVE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ALLEGED PROPERTY WAS HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE. STILL AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACTS IN P ROPER PERSPECTIVE AND MADE THE ADDITION. HE, RELYING UPON THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAININ G THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII) OF FINANCE BILL 2010-11, SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND IN RES PONSE TO NOTICE DATED 27.4.2017, THE ASSESSEE FILED BALANCE-SHEET MUCH PRIOR TO SHOW -CAUSE NOTICE WHEREIN THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SHOWN AS STOCK-IN-TRADE. THE COPIES OF THE BALANCE-SHEET AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT ARE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THERE WAS NO CHANGE OF STAND AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN TIME AND AT NO PLACE, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE SAID LAND AS INVESTMENT, THUS, THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO FILE ANY REVISED RETURN. EVEN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT COMMENT UPON ADVERSELY ON THE BALANCE-SHEET AND IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR BE ING THE FIRST YEAR WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD OPTED TO CARRY ON BUSINESS OF REAL EST ATE, NO EXPENSES LIKE STAMP DUTY, REGISTRATION CHARGES, LAWYERS FEES WERE INCUR RED AND ALL SUCH EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE VALUE OF LAND AND SHOWN AS CLO SING STOCK IN THE BALANCE-SHEET. THUS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDE D THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ARE NOT AP PLICABLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. SR. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE OR DERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. BEFORE ME, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNN ING INTO 25 PAGES, WHEREIN RELEVANT DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN ANNEXED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE LEARNED SMC URMILA DHANOTIA ITA 691 OF 2018 3 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ASSES SEES MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORE D BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSEE WOULD APPEAR WITHOUT WAITING BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FURTHER NECESSARY ACTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOU LD EXAMINE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PAPERS FILED BEFORE ME AND THEN R EFRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH IN TERMS AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE AFTER AFFORDING D UE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW AND THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DI RECTED TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCE/SUBMISSION, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAI M AND COOPERATE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. 5. IN RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.3.2019 . SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 15.3.2019 ! VYAS ! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/PR.CIT(A)/PR.CIT/DR, INDORE