SHRI ASHFAQUE AHMED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 113/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke Shri Ashfaque Ahmed, ACIT, Vs. C/o- Ashish Khandelwal & Associates, Circle-5 G-2, Arihant Tower-2, Opp.- BSNL Jaipur. Telephone Exchange, Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA 9053 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Aashish Khandelwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms. Anuradha (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 18/03/2019 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 20/03/2019 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A)-II, Jaipur dated 19/11/2018 for the A.Y. 2014-15 in the matter of order passed U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).

ITA 113/JP/2019 2 Ashfaque Ahmed Vs. ACIT 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that during the year under consideration, the assessee had acquired a house property. The Assessing Officer made addition by taking valuation as per the Sub-Registrar and thereby made addition of Rs. 14,04,254/- U/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act after disregarding considerations disclosed in the sale deed. Even though, the Assessing Officer has referred the matter to the DVO on the objection raised by the assessee but the DVO’s report was not received. Accordingly, he has taken the value shown by the Sub-Registrar as a sale consideration. When the appeal was pending before the ld. CIT(A), the DVO has issued valuation report valuing the property at Rs. 58,24,800/- as against the sale consideration of Rs. 55.00 lacs shown by the assessee. However, by pointing out the defect in the DVO report, the ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. I do not find any merit in the action of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer by considering the stamp valuation as a gospel truth and brushing aside the report of the DVO, objection raised by the assessee and also overlooking the report of the registered valuer. From the record, I found that even the DVO has valued the property at Rs. 58,24,800/- without taking into account the fact that the property acquired by the assessee was occupied by the tenants which adversely affects the purchase price of ITA 113/JP/2019 3 Ashfaque Ahmed Vs. ACIT the property. After taking into account, the DVO’s report there remains difference of only. 5.91%. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gautam (CB) Vs. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 530 has recognized a tolerance limit for pre-emptive purchase of property under Chapter XX-C at 15% for variations. Keeping in view the fact that the property so purchased by the assessee was occupied by the tenants which has not been taken into consideration by the DVO while valuing the property and even without considering the adverse feature so pointed out. The difference in the purchase consideration shown by the assessee vis a vis valuation made by the DVO is merely 5.91%. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any justification even for upholding the addition of Rs. 3,24,800/- which is the difference in the sale consideration shown by the assessee at Rs. 55.00 lacs as against the DVO valuation of Rs. 58,24,800/-, therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition so made.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th March, 2019