Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC
Before: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMAvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1304/JP/2018
per sq feet was Rs. 4966 and after approximately 6 months i.e. as on
ITA 1304/JP/2018 3 Divakar Leasing & Finance Co. Vs ITO 24.02.2012 the Fair Value per sq feet increased approx. 10% and was Rs. 5500 (4966*110%=5462). The assessee Company sold the property on 23.10.2012 i.e. approx. after 8 months from 24.02.2012 and, therefore, the Fair Value per sq feet at the maximum could have increased by 15%-17%. As a result the Fair Value per sq feet was Rs. 6325 (5500*115%=6325) and of the property was Rs. 68,62,625 (1085 sq feet * 6325).The assessee Company sold the property for a sales consideration of Rs. 7,004 per sq feet i.e. Rs. 76,00,000/-. Accordingly, it was prayed that for a marginal difference, no addition is warranted.
On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below.
I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that there is a difference in the sale value adopted by the stamp duty vis a vis sale value taken by the assessee amounting to Rs. 5,11,472/- and thus difference between the same was just 6.73%. I also found that the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the sale deed dated 24.02.2012 to be comparable with that of assessee company on the basis that the property sold through that sale deed was situated at 7th floor where as the property sold by the assessee company was situated at 2nd floor and the properties at lower floors have higher value. Nowadays there is no such distinction as the buildings are equipped with lifts. Further, the property at higher floor gets better view,
ITA 1304/JP/2018 4 Divakar Leasing & Finance Co. Vs ITO light, ventilation, etc. The ld. CIT(A) also held the sale deed dated 24.02.2012 not comparable with the case of the assessee company as the assessee company had not specified the location of the units. The assessee sold flat No. 202 and gave comparable deed of 702 and 603.
The numbers themselves suggest that the units were similarly located.
The ld. CIT(A) further held that the area of the sale deed dated 24.02.2012 is not comparable with the area of the unit sold by the assessee.
Keeping in view the observation made above, the difference of 6.73% in the sale value adopted on the stamp duty vis a vis the value taken by the assessee company does not matter much.
Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the addition so made by the lower authorities; therefore, the same is deleted. I order accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th March, 2019