SHRI RAJNEESH ARORA, Kanpur V. I.T.O., Kanpur

MA 07/LKW/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6252 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

M.A. NO.07/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MISC. APPLICATION NO.07/LKW/2018 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.583/LKW/2015) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 SHRI RAJNEESH ARORA, 117/H2/57, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:AANPA 5107 H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), KANPUR. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THIS MISC. APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 08/01/2018 PASSED IN I. T.A. NO.583/LKW/2015. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED A. R. INVITED OUR ATTENTI ON TO PARA 6 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHEREAS IN PARA 7 HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WILL BE APPLIED WHICH IS CONTRADICTORY AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT INSTEAD OF WORK WILL WORD MAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS PER PARA 6 OF THE ORDER. HE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT IN PARA 7, HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS NOT EXAMINED THE APPLICANT BY SHRI ABHINAV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI AJAY KUMAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 23/03/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23 / 03 /201 8 M.A. NO.07/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 2 ISSUE OF RS.2,00,000/- WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE. LEARNED A. R. SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,000/- WA S RECEIVED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SARDAR SATPAL SINGH THEREFORE, INST EAD OF ASSESSEE THE WORD POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OR SARDAR SATPAL SINGH S HOULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. 3. LEARNED D. R. FAIRLY AGREED THAT THESE ARE TYPOG RAPHICAL MISTAKES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF FINDINGS OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 6 OF THE ORDER . THEREFORE, WE REPLACE THE WORD WILL WITH MAY IN LINE 3 OF PARA 7 AND SIMILARLY WE REPLACE THE WORD ASSESSEE IN LINE 6 WITH THE WORD POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/03/2018) SD/. SD/. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:23/03/2018 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR