M/s. Krishi Yantralaya, HANUMANGARH V. ACIT, SRIGANGANAGAR

ITA 82/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7807 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 50C; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENCH : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 82 /JODH/2014 (A.Y. 200 7 - 08 ) M/S. KRISHI YANTRALAYA , VS. ACIT, CIRCLE, 156 - OLD TRACTOR MARKET , SRIGANGANAGAR. SRIGANGANAGAR . PAN NO. AABFK 0488 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 15 / 0 7 /201 4 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 /0 8 /201 4 . O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, A.M TH IS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 0 5/ 11 /2013 OF L D . CIT(A), BIKANER . THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THAT LD. CIT(A) ER R ED IN LAW & IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING AO' S VIEW FOR ADOPTING VALUE OF GODOWN AT RS. 2230476/ - WORKED OUT BY VALUATION OFFICER THOUGH IT WAS MORE THA N RS. 1563534 / - ASSESSED BY SUB - REGISTRAR AGAINST RS. 1025000 / - SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED. 2. THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW & IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADOPT ION OF RS. 2230476/ - THOUGH IT IS VIOLATING CLEAR PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(3) 2 WHICH RESTRICT TO ADOPT VALUE TAKEN OR ASSESSED BY AUTHORITIES FOR STAMP DUTY P U R POSES. 3. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING VALUE OF RS. 2230476/ - BY DISREGARDIN G NECESSARY RELEVANT FACTS OF SUB - REGISTRARS LETTER DATED 29/09/20123 IN RESPECT OF VALUE OF RS. 1563534/ - WAS CONSISTING OF RS. 1371680/ - BEING VALUE OF LAND + BALANCE OF RS. 191854/ - BEING VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION THEREON AND ALSO SALE INSTANCES OF OTHER P LOTS IN SAME LOCALITY WH I C H JUSTIFIED ITS VALUE WORKED OUT AT RS. 1193000 BY APPROVED VALUER RELIED. 4. IN SUPPORT OF THE VALUE OF RS. 1025000 SHOWN IN SALE DEED. 2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, N O BODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, A WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS BEEN FURNISHED WITH A REQUEST THAT THE SAME MAY BE CONSIDERED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERIT. WE THEREFORE, PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EXPARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED D.R., OF COURSE, ON MERIT. 3. THE ONLY G RIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE VALUATION OF THE GODOWN. 4 . FACTS RELATING TO THIS CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 19/10/2007 DECLARING NIL INCOME. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 29/04/2004 AT NIL INCOME BY SETTING OFF BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION TO THE TUNE OF RS. 6,90,934/ - AND WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE VALUE OF THE GODOWN SITUATED AT PLOT N O . B - 2, TRACTOR & AUTOMOBILE SCHEME, SURATGARH ROAD, SRIGANGANAGAR WAS ADOPTED AT RS. 3 15 ,63,534/ - AS PER DLC RATE AS AGAINST THE SALE VALUE OF RS. 10,25,000/ - DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CALCULATING THE CAPITAL GAINS . THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 22/12/2009 . AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH JODHPUR IN I.T.A.NO 57/JU/2010 WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 22/03/2011, THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACCORDINGLY, MADE A REFERENCE U/S. 142A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT IN SHORT) TO THE V ALU ATION OFFICER, INCOME - TAX DEPARTMENT JODHPUR, WHO VIDE HIS REPORT DATED 11/09/ 2012 VALUED TOTAL COST AT RS. 22,30,476/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE SAID VALUATION FOR CALCULATING THE CAPITAL GAIN. 5 . BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND OBJECTED TO THE ESTIMATION OF THE VALUE AT RS. 22,30,476/ - BY THE VALUATION OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DLC RATE FOR VALUING THE PLOT WAS AT RS. 724/ - PER SQ.FT WHILE THE SALE INSTANCES OF THE SAME LOCALITY AT RS. 635/ - PER SQ.FT . IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE VALUATION WAS TAKEN MORE THAN THE VAL UE ASSESSED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES. 4 6 . THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THAT VALUATION MADE BY THE VALUATION OFFICER WAS BINDING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE VALUE DETERMINED WAS ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING CAPITAL GAIN. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, HAD NOT ANSWERED TO TH IS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHERE THE VALUE ASCERTAINED U/S. 50C(2) OF THE ACT EXCEED S THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHO RITIES , T HE VALUE S O ADOPTED BY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER . THE L D. CIT(A) , SIMPLY SUSTAINED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , WHO ADOPTED THE VA LUE AT RS. 22,30,476/ - . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 7 . IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO STATED THAT THE VALUATION OF RS. 22,30,476/ - SHOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED T O LESS THAN RS. 15,63,534/ - WHICH WAS ASSESSED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES . 8 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . 5 9 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED D.R. AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FURNISHED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT ANSWERED TO TH IS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHERE THE VALUE ASCERTAINED UNDER SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 50C EXCEEDS THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES , TH E VALUE S O ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY SUCH AUTHORITIES SHALL BE TAKEN AS A FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING. IT APPEARS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING ANY COGENT REASON, CONSIDERED THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE FAIR AND REASONABLE. WE THEREFORE, BY CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESE NT CASE , DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 10 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ( ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11 TH AUGUST , 201 4) . SD/ - SD/ - ( HARI OM MARATHA ) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 11 TH AUGUST , 201 4 . 6 VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD. CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , ITAT, JODHPUR .