Sh. Prem Parkash Kapoor, Srinagar V. The Income tax Officer, Srinagar

MA 50/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1797 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K K MEHRACA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 50(ASR)/2013 [ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 82(ASR)/2011] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN: AIAPK8093K SH. PREM PRAKASH KAPOOR, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRINAGAR WARD-2, SRINAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. K.K. MEHRA,CA RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 21.03.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.04.2014 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF I.T.A.T. AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR, PASSED IN I.T.A. NOS. 82( ASR)/2011 AND 205(ASR)/2011, DATED 06.08.2012. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE MISCELLANEOUS APP LICATION WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE: MOST RESPECTFULLY, THE APPELLANT PETITIONER SUBMIT S AS UNDER:- IN THIS CASE THERE WERE CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007-08 ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) OF JAMMU DATED 07.02.2011 AS PER DETAILS GIVEN BELOW: ITA NO. FATE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE 82(ASR)/2011 DISMIS SED .DEPARTMENT 205(ASR)/2011 ALLOWED 2 M.A. NO. 50(ASR)/2013 [ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 82(ASR)/2011] THE GRIEVANCES OF THE APPLICANT ARE AS UNDER:- (1)(A) THAT GROUND NOS. 2 (B) (E) (F) RAISED BY TH E APPLICANT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL HAVE NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED IN THE I.T.A.T. OR DER. THE RELEVANT GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE RESTATED FOR READY REFERENCE AND KIND CONSIDERATION:- (B) THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 HAS BEEN GROSSLY UNDER ESTIMATED INASMUCH AS VALUE OF LAND I N PRIME HUB OF COMMERCIAL AREA AT RS. 100 PER SQ. METER BY THE VAL UATION OFFICER. (E) THAT THE VALUATION REPORTS OF THE APPROVED VA LUERS ON 01.04.1981 AND AS ON DATE OF SALE SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT HAVE BEEN REJECTED WITHOUT ADVANCING VALID REASONS. (F) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED U PON THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ON VALUATION MADE BY THE VA LUATION OFFICER ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. (2) THAT IN THE I.T.A.T. ORDER THE VALUE DETERMINE D BY THE DVO IN TERMS OF SECTION 50C(2) AS ON DATE HAS WRONGLY BEEN ASSUMED AS RS. 1,32,40,675/- THE VIDE PARA 4 OF THE ORDER. THE AFORESAID FMV DET ERMINED BY THE DVO IS FOR 50% OF THE TOTAL PROPERTY SOLD BY THE THREE BROTHERS TOGETHER BY MEANS OF ONE SALE DEED DATED 9 TH MAY, 2006 PAGE 10 TO 20 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE APPLICANTS 1/3 RD SHARE WORKS TO 44,13,541/-. SIMILARLY, THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 AS FOR THE DVO V ALUATION IS 1/3 RD OF RS. 4,23,741/-(I.E. 1,41,247). THIS FACT IS APPAREN T FROM RECORDS & STATEMENT SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. (3) THAT ADMITTEDLY REFERENCE U/S 50C WAS MADE BY T HE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO THE DVO. ADMITTEDLY FMV WAS DETERMINED BY THE DV O AT RS. 44,13,542/- (1,32,40,625/- DIVIDED BY 3), WHICH IS LESS THAN THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STAMP DULY VALUATION OFFICER. (4) THAT THE FACT THAT VALUATION MADE BY THE DVO UN DER SECTION 50C(2) AT RS. 44,13,541/- IS FAR LESS THAN THE VALUATION BY S TAMP DUTY VALUATION AUTHORITY (THE DEEMED VALUE RS. 6986248/-) HAS MISS ED YOUR KIND ATTENTION BECAUSE OF AFORESAID MISTAKEN IN PARA 4 O F THE ORDER. (5) THAT AS PER SECTION 50C(2) WHERE THE VALUATION MADE BY THE VALUATION OFFICER IS LESS THAN THE VALUATION MADE BY STAMP DU TY VALUATION 3 M.A. NO. 50(ASR)/2013 [ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 82(ASR)/2011] AUTHORITY THEN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY DVO IS ADOPTED AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION. (6) FURTHERMORE, WHERE REFERENCE IS MADE U/S 50C(2) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 16A OF WT ACT APPLY. SECTION 16A(6) OF THE WT ACT PROVIDES THAT AS FAR AS VALUATION IS CONCERNED, ASSESSING OF FICER SHALL COMPLETE ASSESSMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ESTIMATE OF THE V ALUATION OFFICER. (7) THAT SECTION 50C(2) & (3) HAVE BEEN INCORPORATE D IN THE STATUTE TO SAFE GUARD THE ASSESSEES INTEREST AGAINST EXCESSIVE AND ARBITRARY VALUATIONS MADE BY STAMP DULY VALUATION AUTHORITIES. THAT AS A RESULT OF APPARENT MISTAKE IN PARA 4 POIN TED OUT ABOVE, THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE BENEFIT UNDER TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(2) & (3). THE AFORESAID MISTAKES WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM RECO RDS HAVE CAUSED SERIOUS PREJUDICE TO THE APPLICANT. THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT SOLICIT YOUR KIND INDULGEN CE IN THE MATTER. THE APPLICANT IS SUBMITTED IN TRIPLICATE COUNTERFOI L OF PAID CHALLAN FOR RS. 50 ON ACCOUNT OF FILING FEE IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-1. COPY OF I.T.A.T. ORDER DATED 06.08.2012 IS ENCLOSED. 3. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE READ THE MISCEL LANEOUS APPLICATION AND POINTED OUT THE RELEVANT PAGES IN OUR ORDER AND THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 4. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSED THE SAID MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND ARGUED THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO GET THE ORDER OF I.T.A.T. AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR, PA SSED IN I.T.A. NOS. 82(ASR)/2011 AND 205(ASR)/2011, DATED 06.08.2012, REVIEWED UNDER THE GARB OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT, 1961 WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED. 4 M.A. NO. 50(ASR)/2013 [ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 82(ASR)/2011] 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED T HE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NOS. 2(B) (E) (F), THE SAME HA VE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN OUR ORDER DATED 06.08.2012 AND AS REGARDS TO THE OT HER GROUNDS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, UNDER THE GARB OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, IS TRYING TO GET OUR ORDER REVIEWED WHI CH IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE LAW. THEREFORE, THE SAID MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH APRIL, 2014 SD/./- SD/./- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29 TH APRIL, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SH. PREM PRAKASH KAPOOR, SRINAGAR 2. ITO, WARD-2, SRINAGAR 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.