SHRI ASHOK NATVARLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

The appellant, from time to time, furnished the details to A.O. as required by notice u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act.

The AO issued show cause notice dated 19.02.2016 to the appellant asking as to why capital gain arose on the sale of residential building and sale of factory building as per Section 50C of the I.T. Act shall not be charged in your case.

The appellant vide reply dated 26.02.2016 explained the issue in details but AO without properly considering the same, added capital gain of Rs.14,65,000/- towards sale of residential building and Rs.2,51,667/- towards sale of factory buildings.

Before the appellate authority, the fact and circumstances of the case for non-disclosing the capital gain on sale of property and investment in purchasing new residential flat was explained and addition of Rs.14,65,000/- was deleted.

Before the appellate authority the appellant also explained the situation as to why the valuation report from the Registered Valuer not obtained and derived the WDV by adopting depreciation at the rate of 10% as per the law. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition without properly considering the fact of the case explained to him.

The appellant is, therefore, before Hon’ble ITAT for kind and judicious consideration.”

The assessee filed return of income on 08.09.2014 thereby declaring total; income of Rs.6,12,900/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,51,667/- in respect of Short Term Capital Gain (STCG).

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) parlay allowed the appeal of the assessee.

At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Notice was duly served to the assessee but the same was returned back with the remark that the “assessee left the premises”. No new address was provided to the Registry. Hence, I am proceeding on the basis of the submissions of the assessee reproduced in the order of CIT(A).

The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition of Rs.2,51,667/- towards capital gain arose out of sale of residential building under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per jantry rate prevailing on the date of transfer. The Ld DR submitted that the assessee never raised objection to the valuation rate before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, cannot plea that difference between the valuation adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority and sale consideration is very nominal.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.