SMT. HANJA BAI W/O LATE SHRI SUKHRAM DHAKAD,INDORE vs. THE ITO 1(3), INDORE

ITA No.670 of 2014 1 Smt. Hanja Bai IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE

BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.670/Ind/2014 A.Y. 2009-10

Smt. Hanja Bai W/o Late Sukhram Dhakad, Indore PAN – BRQPB 9212 F :: Appellant

Vs

ITO-1(3), Indore :: Respondent

Assessee by Shri S.S. Solanki, CA Respondent by Shri Mohd. Javed Date of hearing 20.12.2016 Date of pronouncement 18.1.2017

O R D E R PER SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM

The above appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of learned

CIT(A)-I, Indore, dated 01.7.2014 on the following grounds of appeal:

“1.1 That the issuance of notice u/s 148 by the Assessing Officer and passing the order u/s 144 for the assessment year 2009-10 being illegal and wrong particularly when in assessment year 2009-10, no agricultural land was sold. The order so passed u/s 144, therefore requires to be quashed.

ITA No.670 of 2014 2 Smt. Hanja Bai 1.2 That the ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining addition of Rs.50,00,170/- made under the head LTCG by holding that transfer is complete only when the sale deed is registered. That the sale of the property was executed on 20.3.2008 i.e. in assessment year 2008-09. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in assessment year 2009-10 is illegal and wrong. The same, therefore, requires to be deleted.

Without prejudice to the above 2. That the assessee has purchased land which qualifies for exemption u/s 54B. the same requires to be allowed if any addition is to be made.”

under:

“That the Assessing Officer erred in taking the value of property at

Rs.77,31,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same, by

applying the provisions of Section 50C. The Assessing Officer/ld.

CIT(A) should have referred this matter to the DVO for proper

adjudication of the matter. The addition so made/confirmed without

referring the matter to the DVO is denial of principles of natural

justice. The order so passed being illegal and wrong. The same

require to be quashed.”

as this goes to the root of the matter and is essential in computation of correct

ITA No.670 of 2014 3 Smt. Hanja Bai income. Facts, in brief, are that the assessee sold agricultural land to Smt.

Harjindar Kaur Bhalla at Rs.33,61,000/- with the help of Shri Jagjit Singh Sandhu

and took full credit of the amount of sale price. But the stamp fee officer has

determined fare market value of agricultural land at Rs.77,31,000/-. Therefore,

the Assessing Officer determined the capital gain as under:

Sales consideration as determined by Registrar Rs.77,31,000/-

Index cost of the property (-) Rs.27,30,830/-

Long term capital gain to tax Rs.50,00,170/-

The Assessing Officer issued letter dated 25.3.2012 to the assessee asking the

assessee to attend the office on 28.3.2013 either in person or by authorized

representative to please show cause why value of property as on 01.4.1981 and

capital gain determined as above should not be taken for computation of capital

gain. However, the assessee did not attend the office and ultimately, the

Assessing Officer framed assessment u/s 144 of the I.T. Act and made addition of

Rs.50,00,170/- as above. Against the action the Assessing Officer, the assessee

preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of

the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved, the assessee is before this Tribunal.

ITA No.670 of 2014 4 Smt. Hanja Bai 3. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee, reiterated the submission made

before the Revenue Authorities and stated that the ld. first appellate authority

has wrongly upheld the addition in dispute without considering the real facts and

record available with the authorities below. He further stated that the Revenue

Authorities without referring the matter to the Valuation Officer applied sec. 50C

which is not justified. He further stated that the property in question has been

sold at the prevailing market rates. He pointed out that the valued adopted by the

Stamp Duty Authority is much more than the fair market value of the property. He

stated that in these circumstances, the Assessing Officer should have referred the

matter to the Valuation Officer in view of section 50C of the Income-tax Act,

1961, which has not been done by the AO as well as has also not been

appreciated by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order.

below.

records especially the provisions of section 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961. We are not

commenting upon the merits of the case. We have also gone through the decision

in the case of Manjula Singhal vs. ITO reported in 141 TTJ 511 (ITAT Jodhpur),

ITA No.670 of 2014 5 Smt. Hanja Bai wherein, the identical issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer to refer the

matter to the D.V.O. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present

case as well as relevant provisions of section 50C of the Act, we are of the

considered opinion that AO should have referred the matter to the D.V.O.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of the

A.O. with the direction to refer the matter to the D.V.O. for proper valuation of

the property and thereafter decide the grounds of appeals in dispute de novo in

accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee for

substantiating the claim. The assessee is at liberty to file further evidence, if any,

in support of the claim. Accordingly, all the grounds of the appeal are allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order was pronounced in the open court on 18.1.2017.

Sd/- Sd/- (O.P. MEENA) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 18.1.2017 !vys!