Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: SMT. BEENA A PILLAI & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 21/07/16 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-14, New Delhi on following grounds of appeal: “1. That on facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld . CIT (Appeal) is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.
2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the reopening of the case which is illegal and void ab initio AY:2011-12 Sh. Balvinder Kumar Joshi vs. ITO as the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are not only erroneous but also contrary to the facts of the case.
3. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the invoking of the provisions of section 50C, when the same are not applicable on the facts of the case.
4. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 36,06,250/- by invoking the provisions of section 50C.
That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence.
That the Appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal.”
Brief facts of case are as under. Assessee filed its return of income on 27/03/12 declaring total income of Rs.4,60,084/-. The case was processed under section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Assessee had income from sale of plots, rental income and interest income during year under consideration. He was also a partner in firm and received salary from same. Information was received that assessee had declared to have sold property for Rs. 20 Lacs whereas price of property as per Circle rate was Rs.56,06,250/-. Accordingly after recording reasons, notice under section 148 was issued to assessee on 29/11/13. Subsequently notices under section 143 (2) and 142 (1) of the Act was issued to assessee. In response to statutory notices, representatives of assessee appeared before Ld.AO and filed various details as called for. AY:2011-12 Sh. Balvinder Kumar Joshi vs. ITO 3. During reassessment proceedings Ld.AO observed that assessee had declared short sale price by Rs. 36,06,250/-as per section 50C of the Act. Ld. AO called upon assessee to furnish reasons as stamp duty value as per sale deed was Rs.56,06,250/-. Ld. AO accordingly invoked provisions of section 50 C and made addition of Rs.36,06, 250/-being difference in consideration shown by assessee and stamp duty valuation adopted as per circle rate. 4. Aggrieved by order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT (A) who confirmed addition made by Ld. AO. Aggrieved by order of Ld. CIT (A) assessee is in appeal before us now. 5. Ld.AR submitted that only issue raised by assessee in present appeal is in respect of invoking provisions of section 50 C and adopting difference in consideration and stamp duty valuation without referring it to DVO. He submitted that issue may be set aside to Ld. AO with a direction to refer the same to DVO. Ld.AR submitted that assessee do not object for the valuation that would be determined by DVO. 6. Ld.Sr.DR did not object to same, though he submitted, it is apparent that circle rate as per stamp duty valuation is more than consideration declared by assessee in sale deed and therefore 50 C automatically gets invoked. 7. We have perused submissions made by both sides in light of records placed before us. 8. On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that assessee had not made any request to refer matter to valuation officer. However same has been made by representative before Ld. CIT (A) AY:2011-12 Sh. Balvinder Kumar Joshi vs. ITO on behalf of assessee which has not been considered by Ld. CIT (A). The Ld.AR before us also submitted that valuation as determined by DVO is acceptable to assessee and therefore may be referred to DVO. He also submitted that, before Ld.AO, assessee was not represented properly and therefore plea was not taken at time of assessment proceedings. 9. Considering totality of facts, and undertaking given by Ld.AR on behalf of assessee regarding accepting valuation determined by DVO, we are inclined to set aside this issue to Ld.AO with a direction to refer the matter to DVO for determining fair market price of property sold by assessee. 9.1. Needless to say that assessee shall be granted full opportunity of representing its case as per law. Accordingly grounds raised
by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
10. In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th May, 2019.