The ITO, Ward-1, Palanpur V. Shri Rameshchandra H.Shah, Palanpur

ITA 736/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6041 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS ARTI N SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. & SHRI KUL BHARA T, J.M.) I.T. A. NO. 736/AHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2007-08) THE ITO, WARD-1 PALANPUR V/S LATE SMT. BINDUBEN R. SHAH L/H SHRI RAMESHCHANDRA H. SHAH GHADAVAS, POST & AT: CHANDISAR TAL: PALANPUR, DIST: BANASKANTHA, PALANPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AIMPS 2923 G APPELLANT BY : SHRI O.P. BATHEJA, SR. D.R . RESPONDENT BY : MRS. ARTI N. SHAH A.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 13-06-201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 -06-2014 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD DATED 29.11.2010 FOR A.Y. 2007-08. 2. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON REC ORD ARE AS UNDER. 3. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND A PARTNER OF R.K. EXPORTS AND GETTING PROFIT FROM THE FIRM AND ALSO HAVING INCOME PENSION AND INTERES T. ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 07-08 ON 04.10.2007 DECLA RING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,04,574/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 11 .12.2009 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 24,17,074/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O, ITA NO 736/ AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2007- 08 2 ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) V IDE ORDER DATED 29.11.2010 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGR IEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,12,500/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT/EXPENDITURE IN THE PROPERTY U/S. 69 OF T HE ACT . 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O NOTICED HAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED PROPERTY ON 30.12.2006 FOR RS. 50,31,000/ - BUT HAD PAID STAMP DUTY ON THE MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY OF RS. 72,43,5 00/-. A.O WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE VALUE OF PROPERTY HAS BEEN UNDERS TATED. HE ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERED THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED (RS. 50,31,000/-) AND THE VALUE DECIDED BY STAMP AUTHORI TIES (RS. 72,43,500/- AMOUNTING TO RS. 22,12,500/-) AS UNACCOUNTED INVEST MENT/EXPENDITURE IN THE PROPERTY. A.O WAS FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT EVEN AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THE VALUE OF PROPERTY HAS T O BE TAKEN AS PER THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY FOR S TAMP DUTY PURPOSE. HE ACCORDINGLY ADDED THE DIFFERENCE AS INCOME. AGGRIEV ED BY THE ORDER OF A.O, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) A FTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 3.4 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SU BMISSIONS OF THE AR CAREFULLY. IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC MENTION OF ANY AD DITION CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT EVEN IF THE REGISTRAR DETERMINES THE VALUE AT A HIGHER FIGURE THAN THAT DECLARED IN THE SALE DEED. FURTHER, THE CONTENTION F THE AR THAT SECTION 50C APPLIES TO THE VENDOR ONLY IS CORRECT. THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE AR ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THAT IN FACT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE SOME EXTRA PAYMENT OR THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS HIGHER. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO 736/ AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2007- 08 3 6. BEFORE US, REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A.O . ON THE OTHER HAND LD. A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSES SEE HAS NOTED THAT A.O HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE SOME E XTRA PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY OR THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPE RTY WAS HIGHER THAN THAT WAS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTH ER AGREED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 50C APPLIES ONLY TO THE SELLER AND NOT THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY. BEFORE US, THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT TH E FINDING OF CIT(A) AND THEREFORE WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE O RDER OF CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27 - 06 - 2014. SD/- SD/ (KUL BHARAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT ,AHMEDABA