Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM
आदेश आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :
There are two appeals filed by two different assessees for the common Assessment Year 2008-09. They are filed against the separate orders of CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur commonly dated 06-12-2016.
Briefly stated relevant facts include that both the assessees jointly own a property admeasuring 690.6 sq.mtrs alongwith other two
co-owners. All the 4 plus co-owners inherited the said ancestral
property and the 4 of them has 1/4th share each. Details are given
below :
Mr. Balkrishna Mahipatrao Rane – ¼ share 2. Mr. Meena Sopan Rane + two daughters – ¼ share 3. Mr. Shirish Rane – ¼ share 4. Mr. Harish Rane – ¼ share
During the year, the assessee - Shri Balkrishna M. Rane along with
Smt. Meena Rane along with her two daughters (Ms.Shweta and
Ms.Vaibhavi ) sold the said property for a sum of Rs.45 lakhs. During
the assessment proceedings, AO noticed that the market value of the
said property works out to Rs.1,00,87,000/-. The same is much higher
than Rs.45 lakhs. Therefore, AO proceeded to invoke the provisions of
section 50C of the Act and made the additions in the assessments of
both the cases under consideration. While the AO made addition of
Rs.31,31,280/- in the case of Shri Balkrishna M. Rane on account of
long term capital gain as per the discussion given in Para Nos.12 and
13 of the assessment order and Rs.34,26,257/- was added in the case
of Smt. Meena Sopan Rane. CIT(A) confirmed the additions vide his
order dated 06-12-2016.
Aggrieved with the order of CIT(A), both the assessees are in
appeal before the Tribunal with similar grounds. The grounds raised by
these assessees are therefore reproduced here as under :
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining addition by refusing to consider the actual area of land and consequently valuation as determined by the registered valuer. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have referred the matter to departmental valuation officer for ascertaining area and value of property.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant has approached to the concerned office for getting the basis of valuation made but unfortunately could not get the same within time. 4. The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.”
Before me at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted
that there was a mistake with reference to the figure of market value of
said land/building and submitted that the sum Rs.1,00,87,000/-
constitutes a mistake. In this regard, bringing my attention to the
relevant correction deed dated 11-05-2018, Ld. Counsel for the assessee
submitted that the correct figure should have been Rs.44,35,380/- and
not Rs.1,00,87,000/-. Considering the fact that this constitutes the
additional evidence, Ld. Counsel prayed for admitting the same and
remanding the issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. He
demonstrated that the said correction deed is made after the CIT(A)
passed the order.
After hearing both the parties on this limited issue of admission of
additional evidence as well as remanding the issue to the file of AO, I
find the correction deed being dated 11-05-2018 is subsequent to the
passing of assessment order/appellate order. Therefore, the said
document/additional evidence certainly does not exist at the relevant
point of time when the assessment/appellate orders were finalised.
Thus, the assessee has a reasonable cause for not submitting the said
document before the concerned authorities. Therefore, I order for
admitting the same in the interest of administration of justice.
Therefore, I direct the AO to admit the same and adjudicate the
issue afresh after considering the correct figure and the contents
mentioned in the said correction deed. Since the property in question is
a joint property relatable to both the assessees, the grounds raised by
both the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed for
statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 15th day of June, 2018.
Sd/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) लेखा सद� / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक Dated : 15th June, 2018. Satish
आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अ�ेिषत
अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur 3. आयकर आयु� / The Pr.CIT-2, Kolhapur 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.
आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स आदेशानुसार
स�यािपत �ित //True Copy //
Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune