SHRI UDAYVIRSINGH BHADAURIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1) NOW WARD-7(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad dated 04.01.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12 and following ground has been taken:

During the year under consideration, the assessee has sold non-agricultural land on 03.07.2010 for Rs.85,00,000/- at Survey No,386/3,4,5,6 and 7 at Village Saijpur Bogha, District Ahmedabad. On perusal of sale deed it was noticed that the purchaser has paid stamp duty for Rs.6,71,500/-. The determined Jantri value comes to Rs. 1, 37,04,08 1/-. As per Section 5 OC the sale consideration should be taken as per Jantri Value. Therefore, Jantri value is taken at Rs. 1,37,04,081/-. The working of capital gain is as under:- Sale consideration Rs.1,37,04,081/- Less: Purchase value Rs.70,00,000/- StampDuty Rs. 3.43.000/- Registrationfee Rs. 70, 180/- Rs. 74.13.180/- Rs. 62.90.900/- Less: Cost of improvement Rs. 11,00,000/- Short Term Capital Gain Rs.51,90,900/-

The assessee has not shown short term capital gain in return of income. Therefore, a show cause was given to the assessee vide this office letter No.ITO/Ward-6(l)/UBB/F-60/show cause/2013-14 dated 23.12.2013 to show cause as to why addition of Rs.51,90,900/- should not be made in his total income. In response to show cause, the assessee vide letter dated 17.02.2014 submitted that he had filed a petition in Gujarat High Court and order may be kept in abeyance till the decision of Court or last date for passing the order whichever is earlier. The next hearing of assessee in Gujarat High

Against the addition of Rs. 51,90,900/-, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and request him to refer this matter to the DVO in order to ascertain the market value of the property. But ld. CIT(A) did not accept the plea of the assessee and confirm the addition of Rs. 51,90,900/-.

Now appellant is before us.

Appellant contended before us that there are various factors affected the market rate of property and said property situated in backward area where majority of the population are living below the poverty line and the property was situated just across public toilets hence the fair market value of the property was low and not representative of the Jantri value.

We are of the considered opinion, that ld. CIT(A) should have accepted the prayer of the appellant for referring the matter to the DVO for valuation of the property but he failed to do so. Therefore, in these circumstances, we think it proper to set aside the order and send this matter back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer who will refer this matter to the DVO in order to find out the exact value of the property. Thereafter, A.O. will decide the matter as per law.