ACIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Jai Prakash Aggarwal, New Delhi

ITA 840/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7803 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VP BANSAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 840/DEL/2012 A.Y. : 2008-09 ACIT, CIRCLE 36(1) VS. SHRI JAI PARKASH AGGARWAL DELHI A 5, SWASTHIYA VIHAR, DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDEN T) APPELLANT BY : MS. Y.KAKKAR, SR.D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VP BANSAL, C.A. O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 23.11.2011 OF CIT(A)-XXVII FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 RAI SING THE FOLLOWING GROUND. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW BY ADOPTING FARE MARKET VALUE OF THE P ROPERTY AT RS.19,83,750/- AS AGAINST RS.46,20,000/- AS PER PRO VISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IGNORING THE PROVISION OF SE CTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH. A P ERUSAL OF RECORD SHOWS THAT AS AGAINST THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHO VIDE ORDER D T. 30.3.2012 IN ITA 276/DEL/12, (COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD) RES TORED THE ISSUE IN REGARD TO THE PROPERTY M 43,VASUNDHARA, GHAZIABAD B ACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION : 2 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT O F THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. WE FIND THAT S ECTION 50C MANDATES THAT IF ASSESSEE IS PLEADING THAT THE FAIR MARKET PRICE IS LESS THAN MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATI ON AUTHORITY, THE A.O. SHOULD REFER THE PROPERTY TO THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR KNOWING CORRECT FULL OF VALUE CONSIDERATION, IN TH IS CASE, ;WE FIND THAT NO SUCH REFERENCE AHS BEEN DONE BY THE A.O. U NDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FOLLO W THE PROVISIONS OF DVO FOR ASCERTAINING THE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROP ERTY. BOTH THE COUNSEL FAIRLY AGREED TO THIS PROPOSITION. 2.1. THE LD.D.R. STATED THAT THOUGH THE ISSUE MAY BE SAID TO STAND COVERED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE BENCH, HOWEVER, T HE DEPARTMENT WOULD WANT TO ARGUE THAT NO SUCH REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. FOR MAKING REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICE R. AS SUCH RELYING UPON SHARAD DINESH PHOTOGRAPHERS VS. ITO, (2011) 43 SOT 452 MUMBAI THE SAID REQUEST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY T HE BENCH. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH AGAINST THE VERY SAME IMPUGNED ORDER IN THE CASE OF VERY SAME PROPERTY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS COME TO A CONCL USION THAT THE ISSUE HAS TO BE RESTORED BACK. THE SAID PRAYER OF THE LD .D.R. IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS HAS NO RELEVANCE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWI NG THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE THE GROUND RAISED B Y THE DEPARTMENT IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF A.O. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DI RECTIONS GIVEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. 3 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH APRIL,2012. SD/- SD/- (A.N. PAHUJA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R DATED: 26 TH APRIL, 2012 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT (A); 5.DR 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR // C O P Y //