MEENA SOPAN RANE,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

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.

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 :

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.

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.

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.

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.

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