Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘ SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 27/12/2018 passed by CIT(A)-15, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2014-15..
The grounds of appeal
are as under:- 1. “That the Order Passed by Hon’ble CIT (A) is illegal, against the facts & circumstances of the case, up to the extent of grounds of appeal.
2. That in the facts & circumstances of the case, value of the property at Greater Noida (U.P) cannot be assessed at Rs. 83,20,000/- as against Rs. 65,00,000/- declared by the assessee.
3. That Ld. CIT (A) have erred in confirming the value under construction flat of Rs. 83,20,000/- in spite of the fact, valuation referred u/s 50C of Income Tax Act, by Ld. A.O. to departmental valuer, report has not been received.
4. Alternatively, Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, cannot be applied, as No, “Land or Building” was transferred only “Right of a development property” was transferred. Hence, sale value of Rs. 65,00,000/- to be accepted.
5. Any other ground before or at the time of hearing.”
3. Return filed declaring Income of Rs. 5,67,680/- & Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) of Rs. 47,51,754/-. During the year, the assessee sold “Rights in flat in multi storey building” under development, bearing no. 1002 Block-9, Sector-Tau, Greater, vide ‘Agreement to Sale’ dated 14.02.2014 for consideration of Rs. 65,00,000/- drawn between assessee & one Mr. Narendra Prasad Singh. The Assessing Officer observed that flat was booked by the assessee vide, “FLAT BUYER AGREEMENT” dated 25.10.2005 drawn between Parsvanth Developers Ltd, and the assessee. No document was drawn i.e. lease/sub lease deed other than “FLAT BUYER AGREEMENT” between assessee & M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. The Assessing Officer assessed Income at Rs. 5,67,680/- by making addition of Rs. 20,14,800/- under the head “Capital Gain”.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
None appeared for the assessee despite giving notice. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of the submissions made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and before the CIT(A).
The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has given a valuation report dated 31/12/2013 of Government Approved Valuers which was not at all considered by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer both did not give any reasons as to why the collector rate for value of the property has been adopted. Therefore, we are remanding back this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the actual rate of the property by calling for DVO’s report as per the provisions of the Act and decide accordingly. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.
In result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 02ND MARCH, 2020.