SUSHILA GUPTA, ALIGARH V. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

MA 1/AGR/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2895 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH UPNEJA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Value adopted by valuation officer; Valuation report; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI P.C. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No. 1/Agr/2023 (in ITA No. 31/Agr/2019) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Sushila Gupta, 13/272, Mamu Bhanja Railway Road, Aligarh-202001 U.P. PAN: AHHPG6286E Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Aligarh. (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Manish Upneja, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 19.04.2024 Date of pronouncement: 22.04.2024 ORDER PER P.C. YADAV, JM: Present miscellaneous application is arising from the order of ITAT in ITA No. 31/Agr/2019 dated 18.10.2023. 2. The main contention of the assessee in this miscellaneous application is that the coordinate Bench while delivering the judgment has committed some mistake, which is apparent on record and the same may be rectified. M.A. No. 1/Agr/2023 2 3. The counsel for the assessee has drawn the attention of the Bench towards para No. 10 of ITAT order in ITA No. 31/Agr/2019, which is reproduced as under : “10. It is found from the assessment order the Assessee had been given several notices but the Assessee avoided giving reply to the notices issued by the A.O. and kept on taking adjournments for 18 months and finally at the end of the year, when the case is going to be time barred, furnished reply with valuation report. The Ld. A.O. found that the said valuation report is without having date and also lack of details of complete properties. As per the A.O. since the Assessee intentionally filed the Valuation Report at the fag-end of the time barring, leaving no time for the Department to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer, the Valuation Report submitted by the Assessee has not been relied upon. The such conduct of the Assessee taking adjournment for 18 months and filing the valuation report at the end of the year nearing the time barring for the A.O. and on the other hand taking a ground that the A.O. failed to refer the matter to the A.O. as per Section 50C(2) of the Act is not appreciable. Nevertheless, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and by following the ratio laid down in the case of Sunil Kumar Agrawal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Siliguri, (supra), we set aside the order of the Lower Authorities and restore the issues involved in the present appeal to the file of the A.O. who shall refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation officer and on obtaining the report from the Departmental Valuation Officer, the A.O. is directed to make de-novo assessment in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are disposed off by partly allowing the Appeal of the assessee for statistical purpose.” 4. Thereafter, learned counsel for the assessee has drawn the attention of the Bench towards paper book filed during the course of hearing and pointed out that DVO’s report was already on record and hence, the ITAT has committed an error by setting aside the proceedings to the file of the AO and directing him to refer the matter M.A. No. 1/Agr/2023 3 to the DVO. The limited prayer of the counsel for the assessee is that the observation of the ITAT that “we set aside the order of the Lower Authorities and restore the issues involved in the present appeal to the file of the A.O. who shall refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation officer and on obtaining the report from the Departmental Valuation Officer, the A.O. is directed to make de-novo assessment in accordance with law”, is a mistake apparent on record. 5. The learned DR, on the other hand, pointed out that the DVO’s report dated 12.03.2018, copy of which is there in the paper book at page No. 135 to 149, on which assessee is relying, was a preliminary report and was not a complete report of the DVO, as is evident from the report of the DVO (page No. 136). The learned DR pointed out that there is another DVO’s report dated 22.03.2018 in the record of AO, which was the final report of the DVO. 6. The Ld. counsel for the assessee in rejoinder categorically stated that the DVO’s report dated 22.03.2018, which was complete report as per Ld. DR, was not supplied to the assessee. 7. After considering the rival submissions and the case records, we are of the view that the order of ITAT, which is impugned in this M.A. No. 1/Agr/2023 4 miscellaneous application, contains a mistake apparent from the record. The ITAT overlooked the factum of final DVO report on the record of the AO. Therefore, we expunge the observation of the ITAT directing the AO to obtain a fresh DVO report. Further we direct the AO to provide copy of DVO’s report dated 22.03.2018 to the assessee in set aside proceedings and decide the matter in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.04.2024 at Agra, U.P. Sd/- Sd/- (RAMIT KOCHAR) (P.C. YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 22.04.2024 *aks/-