SHRI SURENDRA KAUR HORA,INDORE vs. THE ITO WARD 5(3), INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 171/IND/2017Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 April 2019AY 2006-079 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the DVO's inconsistent valuation and directed the AO to adopt a specific lower rate. However, the Tribunal rejected the argument against the applicability of Section 50C.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold a plot of land, and the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition based on the valuation by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The assessee argued that the DVO's valuation was incorrect and that Section 50C was not applicable.

What were the issues?

Whether the DVO's valuation of the property was correct and whether Section 50C of the Income Tax Act was applicable to the transaction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Jain &, Shri Pankaj Shah, A.Rs
For Respondent: Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr.D.R
Hearing: 28.03.2019Pronounced: 08.04.2019

आदेश / O R D E R

PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A)-II, Indore dated 3.10.2016 pertaining to the

1.

[ITA 171/Ind/2017] [Smt. Surendra Kaur Hora, Indore] assessment year 2006-07. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case learned CIT(A) erred in holding correctly valued to the property by AVO even who ignore the objection raised by the assessee.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case learned CIT(A) erred in not holding the s.50C of the I.T. Act is not applicable to the transaction dated 15.1.2001. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case learned CIT(A) erred in holding the wrong value taken of AVO even pointed out to the AVO & Assessing Officer. 4. Alternatively, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not holding that the AVO has adopted the value of the property on the basis of some registry taken by him after ignoring to the adjacent sale deed of the plot submitted by the assessee. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend to alter and/or to delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal

2. Briefly stated facts are that case of the assessee was reopened and the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) was framed vide order dated 23.1.2015. The A.O. noticed that the assessee had sold plot in two parts. As per the stamp valuation authority, the valuation was adopted at Rs.9,98,000/- and Rs.7,17,500/- respectively. The assessee raised an objection adopting the value of land as [ITA 171/Ind/2017] [Smt. Surendra Kaur Hora, Indore] per the stamp valuation authority during the course of assessment. Therefore, the assessee referred the matter of valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer. The Departmental Valuation Officer valued the property at Rs.6,56,185/- and Rs.4,73,072/- respectively. Thereby, the A.O. adopting the valuation as given by the Departmental Valuation Officer made addition of Rs.9,41,203/-. Against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who after considering submissions, dismissed the appeal. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3.

The present appeal is barred by 67 days. Assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. An affidavit in support of the application has been filed. It is stated in the affidavit that the assessee is suffering from stage 3 cancer and has been undergoing treatment,

[ITA 171/Ind/2017] [Smt. Surendra Kaur Hora, Indore] therefore, could not file appeal. It is contended that the delay in filing is not intentional but due to serious illness.

4.

Ld. D.R. opposed the averment made in the application.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The assessee has filed a medical report stating that the assessee is suffering from cancer and has been undergoing treatment at CHL Hospital, Indore. In our view, the reason stated is a sufficient cause, therefore, we condone delay and take up the appeal for adjudication.

6.

The only effective ground in this appeal is against addition made by the assessing officer, by accepting the value as recommended by the DVO.

[ITA 171/Ind/2017] [Smt. Surendra Kaur Hora, Indore] 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. The written submissions of the assessee are as under:

[ITA 171/Ind/2017] [Smt. Surendra Kaur Hora, Indore]

[ITA 171/Ind/2017] [Smt. Surendra Kaur Hora, Indore]

8.

Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. The contention of the assessee is too fold. Firstly that the provision of section 50C of the Act are not applicable as in the present case, agreement was executed on 15.1.2001, while section 50C of the Act was introduced by Finance Act, 2002 applicable from 1.4.2003. Secondly, the valuation adopted by the DVO is not correct as the DVO has adopted different value for the same piece of land. As per the DVO, for one piece of land, it is adopted @ Rs.591/- per. Sq.ft. and in the case of other buyer, it is Rs.451/- per sq.ft.

[ITA 171/Ind/2017] [Smt. Surendra Kaur Hora, Indore] 9. We have considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find some merit in the contention that two different values have been taken by the DVO considering the contemporary cases, the value so adopted is excessive. Moreover, the DVO has not given reason to adopt values of the adjacent piece of land. We therefore, direct the A.O. to adopt the value @ Rs.451/- per sq.ft. as adopted by the DVO for one part of the land and compute the addition accordingly. This ground of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.

10.

Regarding another objection of the assessee against applicability of provision of section 50C of the Act, same is devoid of any merit. Admittedly, sale deed was executed when the provision came into force. We therefore reject this contention.

[ITA 171/Ind/2017] [Smt. Surendra Kaur Hora, Indore] 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order was pronounced in the open court on 08.04.2019.

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →