Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL & SHRI KULDIP SINGH
Date of Hearing : 05.01.2017 Date of Order : 10.01.2017 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
The Appellant, Ms. Archana Lal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2016, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Noida under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) qua the assessment year 2013-14 on the grounds inter alia that :- “1. Is the Hon'ble CIT(A) legally justified in passing the impugned order, rejecting the appeal of the appellant, without giving a speaking order on the following grounds of appeal: "On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in making addition of Rs.50,50,000/- to the total income of the appellant on account of LTCG as he has not mentioned in the assessment order, the relevant section under which he has made the said addition to total income; hence the impugned order is not sustainable under law and be set aside";
2. Is the Hon'ble CIT(A) legally justified in passing the impugned order, rejecting the appeal of the appellant, without giving a speaking order on the following grounds of appeal:
"On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in not referring the question of determination of sale value to the "Valuation Officer" despite the appellant informing him that "circle rate" is not relevant for the purpose of computation of LTCG in the case of the appellant; hence, the impugned order is not sustainable under law and be set aside"; 3. In view of the facts and in circumstances of the case, the impugned ex-parte Order of the Hon'ble CIT(A) be set aside as the same is against principles of natural justice as the appellant's only son is suffering from 'Cancer' and this prevented her from attending to the notices of CIT(A), being under severe mental stress.”
Briefly stated the facts of this care are : Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.50,50,000/- on the basis of valuation of the plot sold by the assessee recorded in the sale deed as per circulate rate and assessed the total income at Rs.63,70,030/-.
Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by way of filing the appeal but due to his failure to pursue the appeal the same was decided against the assessee ex-parte. Feeling aggrieved, the revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.
We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
At the very outset, the ld. AR for the assessee drew our attention to the letter dated 13.10.2015, undisputedly received by the revenue, whereby assessee brought to the notice of the AO that the agricultural land purchased by the assessee was in the interior of the village and its fair market value was lower than the circle rate and consequently, the consideration of Rs.90,00,000/- is the fair market value of the agricultural land and as such, the stamp duty value of Rs.14,05,000/- is not relevant for the basis of computing the capital gain.
Undisputedly, the AO proceeded to compute the capital gain by invoking the provisions under section 50C(1) of the Act whereas the assessee is entitled to get the value of the property in question assessed from the valuation officer. So, keeping in view of the fact that when the assessee has disputed the stamp valuation of the property in question at Rs.90,00,000/-, the matter is required to be set aside to the AO to refer the matter to the valuation officer in order to compute the capital gain in the hands of the assessee.
Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and matter is restored to the AO to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Order pronounced in open court on this 10th day of January, 2017.