ITO.WD-2(1), RANCHI vs. SHRI NAND BIHARI SHRIVASTAVA, RANCHI

At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of issuance of notice for hearing more than one occasions. The learned Departmental Representative ( ld.DR) was present for the appellant revenue. In the absence of any appearance of the assesse, the appeal is being dispose of ex parte qua the assesse Page1 after hearing the ld. DR for the revenue on merits in terms of Rule 24 of ITAT Rules, 1963. 1 ITA No. 197/Ran/18 A.Y 2014­15 Shri Nand Bihari Srivastava

Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in ITA No. 197/Ran/2018 for the A.Y 2014­15­16 are as follows:­ The assessee had filed its return of income at Rs. 2,56,133/­. The assessee had sold two property for Rs. 70,00,000/­. The Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and given relief of Rs. 69,96,455/­. The appeal is being filed against the relief allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). The grounds of appeals are as under:­ 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 69,96,455/­ on account of capital gain, as he has ignored provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) also ignored the law points involved in the case of difference of consideration value and value taken for stamp duty. 4. Ground no. 1 and 2 relate to relief of Rs. 69,96,455/­ on account of capital gain ignoring the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the I.T Act, 1961.

Brief facts qua the issue are that the assesse is a retired bank employee. Since no notice could be served upon him, he was not able to adduce evidences on his behalf. The appellant stated before AO that the property at village Pandara consisting of a house and land appurtenant thereto was sold on 17.09.2013 for a sum of Rs.56,00,000/­ (the stamp duty value of the property as evidenced from the registered deed was Rs.35,00,000/­ The appellant purchased a property being a residential flat Bearing No.11047 Eleventh Floor, Crossings Republik at Dhanudhera, Ghaziabad (UP) for Rs.30,00,000/­ and had also paid stamp Duty charges of Rs.2,45,000/­ . The appellant stated the long term capital gains arising to him on the sale of the house, which is given below: ­

On appeal, ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. The ld. CIT(A) called the remand report from AO. In her Remand Report, the Ld. Assessing Officer has verified the documents and has confirmed the LTCG at Rs.32,48,545/­. She, however, has stated that the consideration paid by the appellant for the property was only Rs.30,00,000/­ while the stamp Duty valuation was Rs.35,00,000/­. Thus the balance was taxable u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. After taking into account, the remand report, the ld. CIT(A) held as follows:­ “ I have considered the submissions of the appellant and have perused the Remand Report. I have also perused the deeds of sale and purchase and the bank account as well as the sale deed for the property at village Pandara which was sold by the appellant leading to LTCG. The sale deed evidencing sale of land was executed on 31.03.1995 for Rs.20,750/­. For the cost of construction the appellant has filed copies of the loan of Central Bank of India dated 17.05.1995 of Rs.2.90,000/­ and House Building Advance of Rs.1 ,39,299/­ sanctioned by Central Bank dated 22.12.1997 and further loan of Rs.30,000/­ by the same bank dated 20.02.1999 for 'repairs and renovation'. The appellant had also invested Rs.2,50.000/­ out of his salary and that of his wife. Based on these documents, the Ld. Assessing Officer, in her Remand Report has calculated the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 23,51,455/­. The appellant, in his computation sheet attached to the ITR had taken the cost of Page3 acquisition at Rs.24,68,327/­. In view of the discrepancy the cost of

Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. After hearing the ld. DR for the revenue, we note that there is no infirmity in the order passed by ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has passed the order, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the assessee’s case, therefore , we do not interfere in the order passed by ld. CIT(A). Hence, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 05 ­04­2019