SHRI BABARAM R. KADAM, MUMBAI V. ITO -1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 847/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6966 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 847/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Babaram R.Kadam A 2701, ‘A’ Wing Acura Rustomjee Urbania Majawada, Blkum Thane(W) Mumbai-400 606 PAN : DUZPK3264C Vs. ITO-1(1) Ashar IT Park Road No.16Z Wagle Estate, Thane(W)-400 604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajesh Athavale Department by Shri T.Sankar, Sr.AR Date of Hearing 04.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement 14.03.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 23.03.2021 and pertains to assessment year 20115-16. The ground raised is that ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,50,500/- made by the AO u/s 50C of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the course of assessment AO noted that assessee has sold immovable property being residential flat for agreement value of Rs. 20,50,000/-. However, as per the stamp valuation authority value is Rs. 31,00,500/-, so there was difference of Rs. 10,50,500/-. AO referred to the provision of section 50C of the Act and noted that when the provision of law was brought to the notices to assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. Assessee failed to ITA No.847/M/2021 2 make any response. Thereafter, AO again given show-cause notice to the asssesee. Assessee did not respond. Hence, AO added the same to the income of the assessee u/s. 50C of the Act. Before the first appellate authority, it was noted that assessee has stated that the flat was not developed in the building. That the building is situated in place where amenities/facilities are lacking. That in the same building, other Flats were sold much below market price. However, the first appellate authority dismissed the submission by noting that assessee has not given any concrete evidence. 3. Against the order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 4. Upon careful consideration, I find that when assessee has objected to the valuation, it is incumbent upon revenue authorities to send the matter to D.V.O for valuation as per the prescription of the Act. Hence, I remit this issue to the AO to follow the above direction. 5. In the result, assessees appeal allowed for statistical purpose. Pronounced in the open court on 14.03.2022 Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 14 .03.2022 Thirumalesh, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// ( (( (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai