Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 978/JP/2015
PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-2,
Jaipur dated 27.11.2015 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has
raised the following grounds of appeal :-
“ On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in –
Upholding the assessment order passed u/ 143(3) which I unjust and not following provisions of law.
In upholding the addition of Rs. 23,32,654/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain and taking amount of sale consideration to be the value for stamp duty purposes u/s 50C on sale of Plot No. 39, Mission Compound, Ajmer Road, Jaipur Rs. 65,78,244/- instead of actual sale consideration of Rs. 40 lacs and further erred in holding
2 ITA No. 978/JP/2015 Kanhaiyalal Kalyanmal
that the appellant firm had not objected to the valuation u/s 50C of IT Act, 1961 and therefore not following provisions of law on issue of valuation.
In disregarding the crucial fact that 39 Mission Compound (the property sold) was under possession of a party and assessee was unable to restrain and evict the encroacher and the party had proved before the District and Session Court of his possession and therefore ld. CIT (A) disregarded the point of dispute had made assessee firm agree on sale of Rs. 40 laces and the investment made by the firm was recouped.
Assessee objects to charge of interest u/ 234A, 234B and 234C.
Assessee reserves the right to add, alter, amend and withdraw of any of the grounds.
Briefly stated the facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for
scrutiny assessment and the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was framed vide order dated
02.03.2013. While framing the assessment, the AO computed Short Term Capital
Gain at Rs. 23,32,654/- by invoking provisions of section 50C of the Act. Aggrieved
by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT (A), who after considering
the submissions partly allowed the appeal. While partly allowing the appeal, the ld.
CIT (A) affirmed the addition made by the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the
present appeal before this Tribunal.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO was not
justified in not referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). He
submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had claimed market
value of the property lesser than the value adopted by the AO. Under these facts,
3 ITA No. 978/JP/2015 Kanhaiyalal Kalyanmal
the AO ought to have referred the issue of valuation to the DVO in terms of section
50C(2) of the Act.
3.1. On the contrary, the ld. D/R supported the orders of the authorities below.
3.2. We have heard rival contention, perused the material available on record and
gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to
the fact that the AO has invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act and
adopted the valuation as per Stamp Valuation Authority. During the course of
hearing, the ld. Counsel has drawn our attention to the assessment order wherein
the submissions of the assessee are reproduced. In the submissions, the assessee
has claimed the lesser market value of the property. Therefore, in our considered
view, in terms of section 50C(2) of the Act, the AO ought to have referred the
matter of valuation to the DVO. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and
restore the issue to the file of the AO with the direction that the AO would compute
the Capital Gain afresh after obtaining the Valuation Report from the DVO in terms
of section 50C(2) of the Act. Needless to mention that the AO would provide
sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds raised by the
assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 31.01.2017.
Sd/- Sd/- ( HkkxpUn ½ ( dqy Hkkjr) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 31/01/2017. Das/
4 ITA No. 978/JP/2015 Kanhaiyalal Kalyanmal
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
The Appellant- Shri Kanhaiyalal Kalyanmal, Jaipur. 2. The Respondent – The ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 978/JP/2015)
vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत
5 ITA No. 978/JP/2015 Kanhaiyalal Kalyanmal