ITO, NARNAUL vs. SMT. SAVITA DEVI L/H OF LATE SH. VIJAY KUMAR, NARNAUL

PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present appeal along with cross objection has been filed by the revenue and assessee against order dated 28/07/14 passed by Ld. CIT (A), Rohtak for the assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds of appeal:

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that order of District Collector has been appealed against before Divisional Commissioner and the appeal is pending.

4. Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, vary and/or to add to all or any of the grounds of appeal

on or before the date of hearing.” CO No. 146/Del/15

1. That the order of the learned CIT CA) is perfectly according to the facts available on the records which have been wrongly interpretted by the appellant and arbitrarily challenged before the ITAT in appeals.

ITA 5311/Del/2014 & CO 146/Del/15 Smt.Savita Devi L/H of Late Vijay Kumar A.Y. 2008-09 2. That the learned CIT(A) has fully appreciated that there was no under statement of consideration in the sale made. The learned CITCA) has based her order on the basis of the final order passed after the order of the Divisional Commissioner whereby the Divisional Commissioner had allowed the appeal.

3. That ground No. 3 of the appeal is wholly misconceived and wrong in as much as it is wrongly stated in this ground that the order of the District Collector was in appeal, whereas no appeal is at all pending and that learned Collector had passed the final order on dated 03.07.2014, which is part of the appellate order of learned CIT CA) as annexeure 'A'.

4. That the entire order of the learned CITCA) is fully in accordance with the order of the revenue authorities, wherein it is finally held that there was no under statement of consideration at the time of sale of the land. The order of the learned CIT(A) may, therefore, kindly be confirmed and departmental appeal may be dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Assesse filed his return of income on 31/03/09 declaring total income of Rs.1,31,280/-. The case was processed under section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Subsequently it was noticed that assessee has made agreement for sale of land administering 5 Bigha 1 Biswa at village Narnaul for Rs.2,50,00,000/-on 28/01/07. It was submitted that the said land was sold vide 2 agreements for Rs. 50 Lacs and 25 Lacs on 23/08/07. Accordingly, notice under section 148 was issued to ITA 5311/Del/2014 & CO 146/Del/15 Smt.Savita Devi L/H of Late Vijay Kumar A.Y. 2008-09 assessee. Assessing officer thereby as per provisions of section 50 C of the Act valued the property for 2.5 crores as against 75 lakhs shown by assessee. In the absence of any documentary evidence in support of the claim, assessee’s submissions were rejected and an addition amounting to Rs.1,90,66,087/- was computed on account of capital gains. 2.1. Aggrieved by the addition made by Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT (A). 2.1. During the 1st appellate proceedings an investigation was carried out by Additional Deputy Commissioner on the order of Deputy Commissioner. After investigation it was observed that no case about evasion of stamp duty was proved in the sale deed. An order dated 03/07/14 passed by the District Revenue Officer was placed before Ld. CIT (A) wherein it was observed that the sale deed was correctly registered in conformity with the collectors rate hence deficiency of any stamp duty was not found and as such the proceedings initiated were dropped after withdrawal of the notice issued by Sub Registrar. 2.2. Based on this order passed by the District Revenue Officer Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition made by assessing officer. 2.3. Against the order of Ld. CIT (A) revenue is in appeal before us now. 2.4. Ld. DR supported the order of Ld. AO. 2.5. Ld.AR has submitted that the basis for valuing the property sold by assessee at Rs.1.25 crores the notice was issued by Sub- Registrar. He submitted that the District Revenue Officer later ITA 5311/Del/2014 & CO 146/Del/15 Smt.Savita Devi L/H of Late Vijay Kumar A.Y. 2008-09 dropped the charges and the proceedings of the notice issued by Sub Registrar and has also observed that there is no evidence to establish and prove that the land has been sold for Rs.1.25 crores. 2.6. He submitted that the entire basis of assuming the value of property at Rs.1.25 crores falls flat, and thus Ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition.

5.1. It is observed that the Cross Objection raised by assessee supporting the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is in respect of the valuation of the property sold by assessee. As we have already