Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
Both these Cross Objection and Appeal are filed by two different assessees, namely Shri Maheshkumar Ishwarlal Bhojani and Smt. Mona Maheshkumar Bhojani against two different orders dated 18.05.2016 & 10.07.2018 passed by the CIT(A), Ahmedabad for the Assessment Years 2012-13 respectively.
C.O. No.122/Ahd/2016 & Assessment Years: 2012-13
Page 2 of 5 2. The assessee in its Cross Objection No.122/Ahd/2016 has raised the following grounds :-
“1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in adapting the Jantri value of Rs.1,68,90,617/- as against taken by assessee in the return of income of Rs.1,18,81,200/- by applying section 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is said that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law, the provision of Section 50C is not applicable even otherwise there is no justification for enhancing the value at Rs.1,68,90,617/-“
The assessee in its Appeal has raised the following grounds :-
“1. The CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition made by Assessing Officer by applying Section 50C of the Act at Rs.1,68,90,617/- instead of Rs.1,18,81,200/- being ½ share in the property sold. It is prayed that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the application of Section 50C is denied and even on merits, the addition is required to be deleted.
The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that, the whole proceeding under Section 147 is itself bad in law and void and is liable to be deleted.”
The Cross Objection filed by Shri Maheshkumar Ishwarlal Bhojani is in consonance with the adopting the Jantri value by applying Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the CIT(A). This issue is identical in Smt. Mona Maheshkumar Bhojani. Therefore, we are taking facts of Cross Objection No.122/Ahd/2016. The return of income was filed by the assessee on 29.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.21,830/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. During the year under consideration the assessee derived income as Timber Merchant and Commission Agent as well as interest income under the name and style of proprietorship concern namely M/s. Govindjee Vithaldas & Co. During the year, the assessee has shown total turnover of Rs.56.30 Lakhs with GP of Rs.7.36 Lakhs which in terms of percentage is 13.08% as against total turnover of Rs.91.39 Lakhs with GP of Rs.10.34 Lakhs which with in terms of percentage is 11.32% shown in the immediately preceding year. The Assessing Officer
C.O. No.122/Ahd/2016 & Assessment Years: 2012-13
Page 3 of 5 has made addition in respect of LTCG on sale of property amounting to Rs.1,29,02,091/- thereby observing that the assessee has shown the same value of the residential house property on the basis of Sale Deed executed at Rs.2,37,62,400/- whereas Sub-Registrar Office has approved the jantri rate/ market value of the same at Rs.3,37,81,233/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had under-stated the value of the sale of the aforesaid property in view of the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. The Assessing Officer further observed that the exemption claimed under Section 54 of the Act is not allowed to the assessee as assessee failed to prove the intention of investment while claiming such exemption.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has referred the case for revaluation of the sale of property for revised valuer’s report but the Assessing Officer has not given any weightage to the same valuation report of the registered valuer thereby observing that the valuation of the Stamp Duty Authority is final. The Assessing Officer observed that since both the parties accepted the said valuation and paid the duty on the value assessed by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority, the market value at Rs. 3,37,81,233 be taken into account. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee submitted only the valuer’s report despite sufficient time and opportunity given to him, but the Ld. AR submitted that the objections made by the Assessing officer are baseless as the assessee has filed valuer’s report before the Assessing officer. The property valued by the registered valuer was not verified by the Assessing Officer but simply stated that the Stamp Duty Valuation authority is final. Thus, the said observation of the Assessing Officer cannot be the ground for denial of Section 54 of the Act and the benefit derived thereunder. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) observed that in the instant case the assessee filed objections to the Sub-Registrar, therefore ,the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act is not applicable to the assessee is also not correct as the assessee has given detailed submissions before the CIT(A) and thereby
C.O. No.122/Ahd/2016 & Assessment Years: 2012-13
Page 4 of 5 stating as to why the said value to be adopted by the Registered Valuer. The Ld. AR pointed out the application for refund of stamp paid on the sale deed dated 15.12.2014 which is made to the Collector & Inspector General of Registrations Gujarat.
The Ld. DR submitted that land was sold on 20.10.2012 and the objection to show cause notice was claimed by the assessee at the time when almost the assessment proceedings were at conclusion stage. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order.
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Assessee at one point states that Sec. 50C is not applicable at the same time saying that it should be applied in consonance to Sec. 48 of the Act, which are contrary to assessee’s stand. Therefore, the CIT(A) rightly observed that the assesse filed objection to the sub registrar, therefore provisions of Section 50C (2) of the Act is not applicable and held that the Assessing Officer rightly adopted the jantri rate. As regards to the claim of Section 54 of the Act, the CIT(A) has allowed the said claim. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The Cross objection of the assessee being CO No. 122/Ahd/2016 is dismissed.
As regards to C.O. decided by us hereinabove. Hence, appeal being is dismissed.
In result, C.O. No. CO No. 122/Ahd/2016 and are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 7th day of October, 2022.