Shri Mohan Sharma, A-10, sudershanpura Ind. Area, 22 Godam, Jaipur, Jaipur V. DCIT Circle-6, Jaipur, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 727/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7113 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Reasonable cause; Fair market value; Set aside
• Section: 56; 22; 20

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH VC, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,O A JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 727/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16. SHRI MOHAN SHARMA A-10, SUDERSHANPURA IND. AREA, 22 GODAM, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AISPS 2714 F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : MS CHANCHAL MEENA (ADDL.CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 25.08.2020. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/08/2020. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 20 TH MARCH, 2019 OF LD. CIT (A)-2, JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2015-16. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A O IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 3,80,100/- UNDER SECTION 56(2)(VII) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ILL EGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 3,80,1 00/-. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A O BY ADOPTING THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION WITHOUT REFERRING THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER. THE ACTION OF THE LD. C IT (A) IS ILLEGAL, 2 ITA NO. 727/JP/2019 SHRI MOHAN SHARMA, JAIPUR. UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY MAKING THE REFERENCE TO DV O. 3. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES HIS RIGHTS TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 2. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESP ITE THE FACT THAT ON THE EARLIER DATE THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I. E. 25.08.2020 WHICH WAS DULY NOTED DOWN BY THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER , THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE HEARING BUT WITHOU T GIVING A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT ATTENDING THE HEARING DESPITE THE LINK AND INVI TE WAS SENT TO THE LD. A/R WELL IN TIME. ACCORDINGLY, WE PROPOSED TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OFF THIS APPEAL EX PARTE. 3. THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL IS CONCLUDED THROUGH V IDEO CONFERENCE DUE TO PREVAILING CONDITION OF COVID 19 PANDEMIC. 4. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS REGARDIN G ADDITION MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 56(2)(VII) OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOUNT O F DIFFERENCE OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY PURCHASED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN COMPARISON TO THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY . THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED I MMOVABLE PROPERTY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BEING UNIT NO. 1, GROUND F LOOR, PLOT NO. E-28, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR ON 24.11.2014 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 19,50,000/- WHEREAS THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS DETERMINED BY THE STAMP D UTY AUTHORITY AT RS. 23,30,100/-. THE AO ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE DIFFERE NCE OF RS. 3,80,100/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS PER SECTION 56(2)(VII) OF THE IT ACT. THE LD. D/R HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECO RD ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL TO 3 ITA NO. 727/JP/2019 SHRI MOHAN SHARMA, JAIPUR. SHOW THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS LESS THAN THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY. SHE HAS RELIED UPON THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. D/R A S WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE AS SESSEE HAS MAINLY CONTENDED THAT THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO TH E DVO FOR DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE UNDER SECTION 50C(2) OF THE IT ACT WHI CH IS APPLICABLE WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 56(2)(VII) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS ON THIS POINT THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY TO BE ADOPTED BY THE AO FO R THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 56(2)(VII), THE AO IS REQUIRED TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALSO REPRODUCED T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARA 2.3.1 AND THE FINDING IN PARA 2.3.2 AS UNDER : - 2.3.1. BEFORE ME LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE FLAT WHICH WAS PURCHASED WAS SKELETON FLAT WHICH WAS NOT HABITABLE AND DID NOT HAVE ANY CONNECTION OF WATER AND ELECTRICITY. THE CONSTRUCTION WAS UNAPPROVED AND UNAUTHORIZED BECAUSE OF WHICH FEW FLATS OF THE BUIL DING WERE PARTLY DEMOLISHED BY JDA. HOWEVER, BEFORE ME ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. 2.3.2. THEREFORE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF TH E CASE, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. THUS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4 ITA NO. 727/JP/2019 SHRI MOHAN SHARMA, JAIPUR. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ACKNOWLED GED THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ADOPTION OF THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 56 (2)(VII). THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS POINTS BEING FLAT IN QUESTION IS ONL Y SKELETON WITHOUT HAVING ALL NECESSARY AMENITIES AND FACILITIES. THUS THE ASSESS EE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE FLAT IN QUESTION IS NOT HABITABLE AND EVEN THE CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE JDA, THEREFORE, THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE AO IS NOT REPRE SENTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THOUGH THERE WAS NO SUCH OBJECTION RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO, HOWEVER, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THESE POI NTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE ISSUE OF DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS REQUIRED TO BE DETERMINED THROUGH REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND DVO VALUATION. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE RECORD OF THE AO FOR LIMITED PURPOSE O F GETTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION TO BE DETERMINED BY THE DV O AND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER GIVING A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/08/2 020. SD/- SD/- ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 26/08/2020. DAS/ 5 ITA NO. 727/JP/2019 SHRI MOHAN SHARMA, JAIPUR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SHRI MOHAN SHARMA, JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 727/JP/2019) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR