Shri Vinodsingh Natvarsingh Rajput, Vadodara V. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara

MA 31/AHD/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Vinodsingh Natvarsingh Rajput, the appellant, contesting an order by the Income Tax Officer regarding the assessment year 2013-14. The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking corrections in the Tribunal's earlier order dated 24.02.2023. The disputes centered on the correct application of the stamp duty value date for property transaction and the inclusion of certain transfer expenses in the assessment. The Tribunal acknowledged the need to correct the application of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act concerning the date of the sale deed and accepted the appellant's claims regarding additional transfer expenses incurred due to land encroachment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129868 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 30-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Ramesh Govindbhai Patel
• Laws Referred To: Section 50C of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

M.A. No.31/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.31/Ahd/2023 (In ITA No.1853/Ahd/2019) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vinodsingh Natvarsingh Rajput, vs. Income Tax Officer, Kanchanpura, , Ward – 1(2)(5), Behind Paris Bhista, Vadodara. Vishwamitri, Vadodara – 390 011. [PAN – AJJPR 3383 H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Surendra Modiani, AR Revenue by : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 31.03.2023 Date of pronouncement : 05.04.2023 O R D E R This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the Assessee in respect of order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. AR submitted that there is an error in paragraph no.7 of the order, as in the aforesaid order, in respect of conclusion for the reason that in this case the stamp duty value as on the date of the agreement i.e. in 2009 is required to be considered and not in the year of registration of Sale Deed in 2012 as per the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in case of Ramesh Govindbhai Patel which was noted in the order. Therefore, the Ld. AR requested to rectify the order to that extent. 3. The Ld. AR further submitted that in paragraph No.8 of the order, as regards to ground no.3 related to transfer expenses, the assessee has established that there was encroachment on the land and, therefore, the assessee has incurred transfer expenses which should have been taken into account by the Assessing Officer which also included payment to Government and not just expenses for encroachment. The Ld. AR submitted that no verification in respect of payment to Government is required and, therefore, paragraph no.8 of the said order may be rectified accordingly. M.A. No.31/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Page 2 of 3 4. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Tribunal and submitted that the assessee is seeking review of the order and the Miscellaneous Application be dismissed. 5. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that as regards to paragraph no.7, the Ld. AR submitted that the observations made by the Tribunal and the directions issued to the Assessing Officer be modified as Section 50C of the Act clearly states that the date of Sale Deed should be taken into account. The contention of the Ld. AR appears to be correct and, therefore, paragraph no.7 of the said order is modified and the modified paragraph should be read as below :- “7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. As regards to ground nos.1 & 2, it is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer as well as the assessee never called for DVO’s report as per Section 50C of the Act. The execution of the Sale Deed was in the year 2012 and, therefore, as per Section 50C of the Act the stamp duty value as on the date of the Sale Deed should have been taken, but in the present case what is the determination of actual land cost was not clear from the Stamp Value Authorities quantification as well as value adopted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the issue needs proper adjudication and verification and, therefore, the same is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer thereby calling upon the DVO’s report and take cognisance of the objections filed by the assessee during that period and take appropriate decision on merit. Needless to say the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice.” 6. As regards to paragraph no.8 related to payment to Government was a matter of fact and was not disputed by the Revenue. Therefore, this contention of the Ld. AR appears to be correct and paragraph no.8 is also modified and be read as under :- “8 As regards to ground no.3 related to transfer expenses, the assessee has established that there was encroachment on the land and, therefore, the assessee has incurred transfer expenses which includes M.A. No.31/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Page 3 of 3 the component of payment made to Government for change in condition and approval of sale amounting to Rs.2,39,94,320/- and payment made to M/s. Shakun Developers for compromise of the dispute amounting to Rs.21,50,000/-. The payment made to Government was a matter of fact and it was not disputed, but the payment made to M/s. Shakun Developers for compromise of the dispute needs to be verified and, therefore, the same is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication and verification. Needles to say the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice.” 7. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 5 th day of April, 2023. Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 5 th day of April, 2023 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad