SUMITRABEN JAIN, MUMBAI V. ITO 21 (3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 7279/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3501 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATISH CHANDRA RAJORE
• Assessee Lawyers: MOHD HASHIM
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 56(2)(vii)(b); 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM ITA NO. 7279/MUM/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) SMT. SUMITRABEN JAIN, FLAT NO. 602, SHREE RAMNATH CHSL, 6 TH FLOOR, OPP. KARNATAKA HALL, MOGAL LANE, MAHIM WEST, MUMBAI-400016. VS. I.T.O.-21(3)(4) PRATISHTHA BHAVAN, OLD CGO ANNEXE, MAHARISHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI- 400020. PAN/GIR NO. AAJPJ 7072 J (APPELLANT ) .. (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY MOHD. HASHIM (AR) REVENUE BY SHRI SATISH CHANDRA RAJORE (DR) DATE OF HEARING 26/02/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04/03/2020 / O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-48, MUMBAI DATED 31/10/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT). THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOW ING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-48 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS LD. CIT(A)] ERRED IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF LD. AO OF MAKING ADDITION U/S ITA NO. 7279/MUM/2018 SMT. SUMITRABEN JAIN VS ITO 2 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT WITHOUT REFERRING THE MATT ER TO DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND O N FACTS. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE FOREGOING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL FLAT FOR RS. 1.15 CORES HAVING STAMP DUTY VALUE OF RS. 1.40 CRORE. IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT , THE A.O. ADDED A SUM OF RS. 25.00 LACS (RS. 1.40 CRORE BEING VALUE A DOPTED BY THE JT. REGISTRAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY LESS RS. 1.15 CRORE BEING PURCHASE CONSIDERATION) U/S 56(2)(VII)( B) OF THE ACT. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED TH E ACTION OF THE A.O., AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPE AL BEFORE THE ITAT. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAR EFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOU ND FROM THE RECORD THAT BEFORE THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A REQUEST FOR REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE DVO, HOWEVER, WITHOUT R EFERRING THE SAME, THE A.O. DIRECTLY APPLIED PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT AND ADDED THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SALE CONSID ERATION AS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED AS COMPARED TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION ADOPTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF REG ISTRATION. ITA NO. 7279/MUM/2018 SMT. SUMITRABEN JAIN VS ITO 3 THEREFORE, IN THE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE DVO SO AS TO FIND OUT VALUATION OF THE ASSETS SO PURCHASED AS COMPARED TO THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR. WE DIRECT AC CORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 TH MARCH, 2020. SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 04/03/2020 *RANJAN COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//