ITO 17(3)(4), MUMBAI V. SADIYA IMRAN CONTRACTOR, MUMBAI

ITA 79/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 7919914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 01-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JANGRE
• Assessee Lawyers: ASIFA KHAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI , . , . . BEFORE SHRI R C SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM ITA NO.79/MUM/2013 ! ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2009-10 ITO 17(3)(4) MUMBAI VS SADIYA IMRAN CONTRACTOR, GROUND FLOOR, M S MOHEB EXPORTS, FLAT NO.2, HALI MANZIL, 64 MORLAND ROAD, MUMBAI 400 008 PAN AACPS5332A ( #$ /APPELLANT) ( %&#$ /RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S K JANGRE RESPONDENT BY : MS. ASIFA KHAN ! ' () / DATE OF HEARING :01.07.2015. ' ' () / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :01.07.2015 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-29, MUMBAI, DATED 31.10.2012 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2009-10. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPE AL IS AS TO WHETHER CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO COMPUTE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS/LOSS FOLLOWING THE VALUATION ADO PTED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER. 2 ITA 79/MUM/13 SADIYA IMRAN CONTRACTOR 3. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME RETURNED LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 3,90,787/- ON THE SALE OF FLAT. THE AO, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE V ALUATION OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF SALE I.E. ON 5.12.2008. HE HOWEVER INSTEAD OF ADOPTING THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER, ADOPTED THE VALUE OF STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES AND CALCULATED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 46,15,477/-. 4. IN APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RELYING UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE TRI BUNAL: I) RAVIKANT VS. ITO (DELHI ITAT); II) ARIF AKTAR HUSSAIN VS. ITO (MUM) [2011] 140 TTJ 413 AND III) CHIRANJIVLAL KHANNA VS. ITO (MUM) [2011] 132 IT D 474 DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FOLLOW THE REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER AND COMPUTE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS /LOSS ACCORDING LY. 5. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT BRING OUT AN Y DIFFERENTIATING FACTUAL OR LEGAL ASPECT WHICH MAY JUSTIFY OUR INTERFERENCE I N THE ABOVE STATED WELL- REASONED ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN THIS RESPECT AND THE SAME I S ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. 3 ITA 79/MUM/13 SADIYA IMRAN CONTRACTOR 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.07.201 5. SD/- SD/- (R C SHARMA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; ,-! DATED :21 ST OCTOBER, 2015. SA - ' % (./ 0/'( /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. #$ /THE APPELLANT. 2. %&#$ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 1( ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. 1( / CIT 5. /2 % ( ! , , / DR, E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI -! / BY ORDER, &/( % ( //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI