SHRI ASHWINKUMAR R. SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BARODA

PER AMARJIT SINGH - AM:

Ashwinkumar R. Shah vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 2 3. At the outset, we adjudicate the first issue contested in Ground No. 1 to 3 against the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 51,06,500/- invoking the provision of Sec. 50C of the Act. The Ground No. 1 to 3 are interconnected to the common issue, therefore, for the sake of convenience all these grounds of appeal are adjudicated together.

During the course of assessment the AO noticed that as per A.I.R. details the assessee has sold immovable property during F.Y. 2010-11 for sale consideration of Rs. 2,23,06,500/- on 10.06.2010. However, in the computation of income filed along with return of income the assessee has shown the sale consideration of Rs. 1,72,00,000/-. Therefore, assessee was asked to show- cause by difference of Rs. 51,60,500/- should not be added u/s. 50C of the Act. The assessee explained that because of location of the property in the undeveloped area the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority was not precise but it was estimated value. The AO has not accepted the explanation of the assessee and stated that stamp valuation authority has rightly determined the market value of the land of Rs. 2,23,06,500/- and provision of Sec. 50C were applicable. Accordingly, the AO has made an addition of Rs. 51,06,500/- and added to the total income of the assessee u/s. 50C of the Act.

During the course of assessment the AO noticed that assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 54B of the Act to the amount of Rs. 1,38,11,530/- as purchasing various pieces of agriculture land. The AO has observed that in respect of four pieces of land at village Sodhi the sale deed were executed after lapse of two years from the date of sale of original asset, therefore, claim of deduction u/s. 54B to the extent of Rs. 43,25,100/- was disallowed.

During the course of appellate proceeding the assessee has submitted additional evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) stating that though the sale agreement has been entered into after expiry of two years but the assessee has actually got possession of the land and also has entered into Banakhat with parties on 30.03.2011. The assessee has also produced additional evidences in the form of Banakhat with the sellers of four pieces agriculture land at village Sodhi and rectified sale deed dated 16.03.2015. The Ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the additional evidences on the ground that assessee has failed to establish that he was prevented by sufficient cause to produce such evidence before the AO. The assessee has submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that all the four Banakhats were misplaced during the course of assessment proceeding, however, the Ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the additional evidences simply stating that the said additional evidences were never produced before the AO and same were beyond the scope of Rule 46A of the Act. We consider that the decision of Ld. CIT(A) is not justified as he has failed to disprove the fact Ashwinkumar R. Shah vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 4 pleaded by the assessee that aforesaid document could not be produced before the AO as the same was misplaced. Therefore, we restore this issue also to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding this issue a fresh after taking into consideration the additional evidences filed by the assessee.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 16/09/2019

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 16/09/2019 TANMAY TRUE COPY आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4.आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध,आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file.