Elymer Electrics P.Ltd, New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi

ITA 7314/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3718 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 7314/Del./2018 M/s. Elymer Electrics Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 7314/Del/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) M/s. Elymer Electrics Pvt. Ltd. 7, Tilak Nagar, Industrial Area Delhi-110018 PAN – AAACE4631J Vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1) New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 27.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 27.04.2022 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 04.09.2018 in appeal no. 5/ 2016-17 for the assessment year 2013-14 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, New Delhi (herein after referred to as the Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. F.A.A.) in appeal pending before it arising out of assessment order dated 29.02.2016 of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), New Delhi u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 ITA No. 7314/Del./2018 M/s. Elymer Electrics Pvt. Ltd. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee had filed income tax return declaring loss of Rs. 16,48,74,990/- and which are processed by scrutiny notice u/s 143(2). Ld. AO had made disallowance u/s 50C of the Act to the extent of Rs. 30,00,700/- which were sustained by Ld. F.A.A., on the basis of following findings : “ 5.0 The gist of the submissions of the appellant for ground of appeal 4 are as under:- “3. Disallowance of 30,00,700/- u/s 50C of the IT Act, 1961: 3.1 During the year, the appellant has sold the plot of land at B-11-A, Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur for a sales consideration of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-. The sub- registrar adopted the value of land for stamp duty at Rs. 2,10,00,700/- and thus made an addition of Rs.30,00,700/- u/ s 50C of the IT Act, 1961. In this connection, it is submitted as under: 3.1.1. That the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer. The copy of the computation of estimated value of the property alongwith the receipt by the sub- registrar is enclosed. On perusal of the same, it will be observed as under: 3.1.1.1 That the area of the plot is 2450sq. mtr. And the DLC rate is Rs. 7660/- per sq. mtr. And value comes to Rs. 1,87,67,000/-. The appellant sold that property for Rs.1,80,00,000/- and the rate per sq. mtr. Comes to Rs. 7347/- and thus the plot was sold almost similar to the DLC rate based on the market rate of the property as on the date of transfer. 3.1.1.2 That the sub-registrar added the cost of boundary wall and some construction in the value of the land at Rs. 22,33,700/-(2,10,00,700- 1,87,67,000). While selling the property, no buyer is willing to pay the cost of construction. 3.1.1.3 Since the sales consideration is nearly the same as adopted by the sub-registrar based on the market value, the aforesaid addition made may kindly 3 ITA No. 7314/Del./2018 M/s. Elymer Electrics Pvt. Ltd. be deleted. ” 5.1 I have carefully considered the assessment order, the submissions of appellant and the facts on record. The appellant has sold property at B-ll-A, Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur for sale consideration of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-. Assessing officer on perusal of the sale deed found that he value adopted by the sub-Registrar in respect of this property is Rs. 2,10,00,700/-. The assessing officer asked appellant to show why the value determine by Stamp Authority should not be adopted for the purpose of determination of capital gains. In the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings the appellant has submitted that the basis adopted by the Stamp Authority is not correct. The assessing officer recorded that perusal as sale deed does not show any defect or encumbrance in the property being transferred. Moreover no evidence in respect of the stamp valuation being challenged by either the transferor assessee or the transferee purchaser before any administrative/judicial authority/court has been filed by the assessee in support of its claim. Under the circumstances the sale consideration as per provisions of Section 50C is adopted at Rs. 2,10,00,700/- on the basis of the value adopted by the sub-registrar Jaipur. 3. It is challenged before the Tribunal raising following grounds; “ 1. That the impugned order is against facts and bad-in-law. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,00,700 u/s 50C of IT Act, 1961 on sale of plot of land at Jaipur whereas :- (a) The value adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority exceeds the Fair Market Value of the property as on the date of transfer. (b) That the Fair Market Value of property as on date of transfer is Rs. 1,80,00,000/- in respect of which the consideration has been received and sale deed has been executed. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 4. The case was called for hearing on 27.04.2022 but non-appeared for the assessee. The notice sent by registered post with AD has been received back with 4 ITA No. 7314/Del./2018 M/s. Elymer Electrics Pvt. Ltd. the report “left”. Similar report was received for notices of date of hearing 01.02.2022. It appears the appellant is not interested to prosecute the appeal. Therefore, arguments of ld. Sr. DR were heard who supported the order of Ld. Tax Authorities. 5. Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record. It can be observed that Ld. AO had considered the fact that the value adopted by Sub-registrar in respect of property was the correct value and the same was executed showing the lower consideration. In spite of opportunity appellant failed to discredit the higher valuation by Registration Authority or that it was challenged before any authority. Ld. First Appellate Authority has rightly confirmed the addition u/s 50C of the Act. No apparent cause of interference is made out. 6. In the light of aforesaid, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is dismissed Ex Parte. Order pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing today i.e 27 th day of April, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K.PANDA) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 27.04.2022 *Binita, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI