Ms. Anubha Garg, Indore V. ITO3(5), Indore

ITA 754/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2931 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MOURYA
• Assessee Lawyers: ARPIT GOUR ARS
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Set aside
• Section: 56(2)(vii)(b); 50C; 143(2)

Judgement Text

[ITA NO.754/IND/2019] [MS. ANUBHA GARG 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.754/IND/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 MS. ANUBHA GARG 304-AD, SCHEME NO.74-C, VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE / VS. ITO 3(5) INDORE ( APPELLANT ) ( REVENUE ) P.A. NO. AJWPG4041Q APPELLANT BY SHRI ANIL KAMAL GARG & ARPIT GOUR , ARS RESPONDENT BY SHRI R . P . MOURYA , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 04.03.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.03.2020 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER O F THE CIT(A)-I, INDORE DATED 27.05.2019 PERTAINING TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED, BOTH ON FAC TS AND IN LAW, IN UPHOLDING AND CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASSED BY THE LD. AO UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT DETE RMINING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS.15,04,990/- AS AGAINS T THE [ITA NO.754/IND/2019] [MS. ANUBHA GARG 2 RETURNED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS.5,52,990/- T HEREBY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.9,52,000/- IN THE TOTAL INCOM E OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED, BOTH ON FAC TS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,52,000/- MA DE BY THE AO IN THE APPELLANT'S INCOME BY INVOKING THE DEEMIN G PROVISIONS OF S. 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961, THEREBY HOLDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STAMP DU TY VALUE AND ACTUAL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY A S THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT CONSIDERING AND APP RECIATING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT. . 3. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED, BOTH ON FAC TS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.9,52 ,000/- MADE BY THE AO IN THE APPELLANT'S INCOME BY INVOKIN G THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF S. 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT W ITHOUT FIRST MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER IN ACCO RDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT DESPITE MAKING A SPECIFIC REQUEST BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. THAT, THE APPELLANT FURTHER CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AL TER OR AMEND THE FOREGOING GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS AND WHEN CONSIDERED NECESSARY. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IS AGAINST SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,52,000/- ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAL E CONSIDERATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WITHOUT REFERRING THE ISSUE OF VALUATION TO THE DEPART MENTAL VALUATION OFFICER (DVO). [ITA NO.754/IND/2019] [MS. ANUBHA GARG 3 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961( HEREIN AFTER REFE RRED AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 18.11.2016 PERTAINING TO THE A.Y. 2014-15. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PLOT NO.128, ADINATH ESTATE, VILLAGE NAYATA MUNDALA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT INDORE, AT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.10,00,000/- WHEREAS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS PER GUIDELINES OF THE PROPERTY AS ISSUED BY T HE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF INDORE, OF THE SAID PROPERTY AT RS.19,52,000/-. THEREFORE, FINDING THE EXPLANATION O F THE ASSESSEE AS NOT SATISFACTORY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION U/S 56(2)(VII)(B)(II) OF THE ACT AS INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES. 4. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING [ITA NO.754/IND/2019] [MS. ANUBHA GARG 4 SUBMISSIONS DISMISSED THE APPEAL. NOW, THE ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEM ENTLY ARGUED THAT THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS THAT DUE TO ALLOCATION OF THE PROPERTY NO ONE WAS READY TO PURCHASE THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE WAS IN SAME THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND ADOPTING THE SAME . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE OBTAINED T HE REPORT FROM DVO, THEREFORE, SUSTAINED THE ADDITION. 6. LD. D.R. OPPOSED THESE SUBMISSIONS AND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS NO OBJECTION IF MATTER REFERRED FOR VALUATI ON. 7. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. CONSIDERING THE FACT ON REC ORD AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW TH AT THE [ITA NO.754/IND/2019] [MS. ANUBHA GARG 5 ASSESSEE HAD OBJECTED FOR THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. HE OUGHT TO HAVE REFERRED THE MATT ER FOR VALUATION TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER( IN SHORT DVO). I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO T HE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING AFRESH AFTER OBTAINING THE REP ORT FROM THE DVO. GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 .03.2 020. SD/- (KU L BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER INDORE; DATED : 09/03/2020 PATEL/PS COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUAR D FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INDORE