Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
आदेश / ORDER
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :
This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 18-09-2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12.
The sole issue raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO u/s. 69B of the Act.
2 ITA No. 565/PUN/2020, A.Y. 2011-12
We note that this appeal was filed on 21-10-2020 and the Registry intimated the date of hearing on 13-06-2022 vide notice dated 23-05-2022. On perusal of the order sheet, we note that, non-appeared on the behalf of the assessee and accordingly, the appeal adjourned to 01-08-2022. Likewise, the appeal adjourned from 01-08-2022 to 16-08-2023, wherein, on all the 20 proceedings non-appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, it clearly shows that the assessee has no interest to prosecute this appeal. On 16-08-2023, the assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to dispose off the appeal by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material available on record.
Heard ld. DR and perusing the material available on record. We note the assessee is a private limited company engaged in land dealing business. A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential and business premises in the group of Shri Ramchandra Maruti Mohite, Kolhapur on 25th and 26th -08-2011, according the AO, the assessee related to this group. According to the AO, the assessee acquired the properties detailed therein para 11 of the assessment order and said properties were purchased for a consideration of Rs.1,09,65,140/- during the period of 31-07-2010 to 31-03-2011. A reference was made by the AO to Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) to determine the cost of the properties in the hands of the assessee as on the date of acquisition. The DVO estimated the cost of properties at Rs.3,21,01,000/- vide its report dated 29-10-2013. The AO issued a letter dated 11-11.2013 requesting the assessee to explain why the difference of Rs.2,11,35,860/- (Rs.3,21,01,000/- - Rs.1,09,65,140/-) should not be taxed. The assessee objected to the DVO report being based on erroneous consideration and contended that the purchase price paid by the assessee was in accordance with the provisions of section 50C of the Act. The AO did not accept the
3 ITA No. 565/PUN/2020, A.Y. 2011-12
submissions of the assessee and added the said amount to the total income of the assessee u/s. 69B of the Act. We note that the assessee reiterated the same submission made in the assessment proceedings before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) discussed the issue in detail and confirmed the order of AO u/s. 69B of the Act. According to the CIT(A), that the DVO conducted reference proceedings by physical inspection of the properties along with the representatives of the assessee on 24-09-2013. Further, the method adopted by the DVO by comparing the same instances after giving due consideration for various factors influencing the value of the said properties. Further, he held the objections raised by the assessee regarding the DVO’s report was not justified and upheld the order of AO taking into consideration the DVO’s report as well as the submissions of the assessee in the First Appellate proceedings. The relevant part at para 6.8 of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder for ready reference : “6.8 From the valuation report it is seen that the valuation was done after physical inspection of the properties, by the valuation officer along with representatives of the assessee firm on 24/09/2013. It is noted that the appellant company purchased various plots under reference through various agreements from different people and these were not contiguous and located on the northern parts of the Herle Villege. It was noted that some of the properties were with cultivation of crops like Ground Nut, Jowar, Soyabean, Cattle Grass etc and that some plots were having access through Kaccha Road. It is noted by the valuation officer that these properties are situated within 7 to 8 Kms from municipal boundary of Kolhapur, North of the main Kolhapur-Sangli Road (State Highway). These are accessed from these roads and are situated 4 to 5 kms inside Wadgoan side. The total plot area has also been identified and there is no dispute to this. It is also noted that the properties are under valuation approximately 8 Kms from Municipal boundaries of Kolhapur and public and civic amenities are available at reasonable distance at Hatkamangle and Kolhapur. It is also mentioned that the properties are free hold. The method adopted is the physical method of valuation based on the comparable sale instances after giving due consideration for various factors influencing the value of the particular properties. Sale instances have been enclosed as Annexure. After considering the pros and cons of the property with related and relevant factors affecting the value such as physical, social, legal, economical and environmental, the land rate of the plot of land as on the date of purchase/sale has been considered and accordingly, valuation has been arrived at. From the annexures to the valuation, it is seen that adjustments have been made vis-a-vis the comparable land instances on account of time gap, size of the plot etc. For example in several instances due to the largeness of the plot, the rate has been reduced by 15% and then the net rate per sq. mt. of land has been arrived. In view of these facts and the method adopted by the DVO, I am of the considered view that the objections raised by the appellant against the valuation of the ova is not justified.
4 ITA No. 565/PUN/2020, A.Y. 2011-12
Accordingly, it is held that the valuation done by the ova by his report is valid and the claim of the appellant that the DVO erred in his valuation is rejected. In view of the above and considering the facts and circumstances and the position of law, the addition made by the AO, on account of the difference of 292.75% between the investment done by the assessee at Rs. 1,09,65,140/- and the valuation made by the DVO of Rs. 3,21,01,000/-; being the difference of Rs. 2,11,35,860/- as unaccounted investment in immovable properties u/s. 69B of the Act is upheld. The ground of appeal is therefore rejected.”
On an examination of the same, we find no submissions or evidences in support of the claim of assessee were filed before this Tribunal and as discussed above inspite of having received notices for 20 proceedings, there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, having no alternative except to confirm the order of CIT(A), we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is upheld. Thus, the sole ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08th September, 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- (R.S. Syal) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिनाांक / Dated : 08th September, 2023. रदव आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The concerned CIT, Pune. दवभागीय प्रदतदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “बी” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. //सत्यादपत प्रदत// True Copy// आिेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
वररष्ठ दनजी सदचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune