Shri Ganeshmal Sagarmal,HUF, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-11(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 800/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 80020514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: DHIREN SHAH
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, , , , A, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, A BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ #$ #$ #$ # ## #. .. .# ## #. . . . % % % %, , , , &' ( & ' &' ( & ' &' ( & ' &' ( & ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.800/AHD/2011 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2006-2007] GANESH SAGARMAL HUF 64, NEW CLOTH MARKET O/S. RAIPUR GATE AHMEDABAD. PAN : AACHG 5086 J /VS. ITO, WARD-11(4) AHMEDABAD. ( (( ( *+ *+ *+ *+ / APPELLANT) ( (( ( ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ / RESPONDENT) ./ 0 1 & / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DHIREN SHAH ( 0 1 & / REVENUE BY : SHRI B.L. YADAV, CIT-DR 3 0 /4' / DATE OF HEARING : 7 TH OCTOBER, 2014 567 0 /4' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-11-2014 &8 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2006-2007 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD. 2. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: I. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN U /S.50C RS.39,01,304/- ITA NO.800/AHD/2011 -2- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN C ONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN U/S.5 0C OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C, TH E AO HAS RIGHTLY ADOPTED THE VALUE TAKEN BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITI ES. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN F AILING TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE U/S.50C O F THE ACT WITHOUT REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE DVO (DEPARTMENTAL VALUA TION OFFICER) 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE REVENUE, A S THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS LESS THAN THE JANTRI VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY IS 70 YEARS OLD AND PARTLY OCCUPIED BY THE TENANTS. HE CLAIMED THAT THE MATTER OF VALUATION WAS NOT REFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFI CER (DVO) INSPITE OF MANDATORY PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT, AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT IS INVALID. THE LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND T HE CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE, THE STA TUTORY REQUIREMENT OF REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR THE VALUATION OF THE PROP ERTY WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE AO WHILE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. IN THESE FACTS, WE CONSIDER THAT IT SHALL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FI LE OF THE AO WITH DIRECTION TO FRAME A DE NOVO ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER REFERRING THE ISSUE OF VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION TO THE DVO, A ND AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( # ## # . .. . # ## # . . . . % % % % /N.S.SAINI) &' ( &' ( &' ( &' ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT