DY.C.I.T. 1 vs. SMT SANGEETA CHAWLA, BHILAI(CG)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.221/Rpr/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-2012

DCIT,-1, 32/32, Bunglows, Vs. Smt. Sangeeta Chawla, Plot Bhilai. No.21/6, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

C.O. No.03/Rpr/2017 (in ITA No.221/Rpr/2014) Assessment Year: 2011-12

Smt. Sangeeta Chawla, Plot Vs. DCIT,-1, 32/32, Bunglows, No.21/6, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai. Bhilai.. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri R.B,.Doshi, AR Revenue by : Shri ,Sanjay Kumar, DR

Date of Hearing : 11/01/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 15 /01/ 2018

O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-

Raipur, dated 2.7.2014 for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee

has also filed cross objection.

2 ITA No.221/Rpr/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-2012

“1. Whether in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s. 50C of STCG of Rs.80,34,750/- made by the AO by adopting sale consideration as value adopted by the stamp duty authorities. 2. Whether in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in giving relief of Rs.80,34,750/- on account of bad debts which was neither claimed by the assessee nor added by the aO and thus giving double relief for the same amount. 3. Whether in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.32,04,800/- made by the AO on excess claim of deduction for cost of acquisition of the property.” 3. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has inter-alia shown

Rs.10,80,400/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain. The assessee also

has shown sale of land for Rs.75,00,000/- and deducted Rs.64,19,600/- on

account of cost of acquisition and difference of Rs.10,80,400/- was worked

out as short term capital gain. On further verification, the Assessing Officer

found that the assessee purchased a land admeasuring 875 sq.m. for

Rs.55,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 02.01.2008. Rs,9,09,600/- was paid for

fees and stamp duty. Therefore, cost of acquisition of the plot was Rs.

64,09,600/- as against Rs.64,19,600/- considered by the assessee as cost of

acquisition. On perusal of the sale deed, it was found that the plot was

purchased by the assessee jointly with Shri Tejender Singh Padda, S/o Late

Shri Bhajan Singh Padda, New Khursipar, Bhilai (PAN : AMKPP2107R). Since

3 ITA No.221/Rpr/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-2012

the plot was jointly purchased, cost of acquisition to the assessee should

have been 50% of the total cost of acquisition i.e. Rs.,32,04,800/-. The land

was sold vide sale deed dated 30.10.2010. On perusal of sale deed, it was

found that the land was sold for Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The land was sold jointly

by Shri Tejender Singh Padda and the assessee to Shri Jai Prakash Goyal,

S/o Late Rampal Goyal of 1733, Nehru Nagar (East), Bhilai (PAN :

ADBPG2454C). Considering the sale proceed mentioned in the sale deed, the

assessee found to have considered Rs.75,00,000/- as sale consideration out

of total sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. Since 50% of the sale

consideration was considered by the assessee for computing capital gain, the

assessee cannot claim total cost of acquisition of the land. Therefore,

apparently the assessee claimed excess deduction of Rs.32,04,800/- (50%

of cost of acquisition of Rs.64,09,600/- + Rs.10,000/-found to be clerical

mistake occurred while computing capital gain). In view of above, the

Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee found to have

concealed income of Rs.32,04,800/- on account of short term capital gain.

On careful perusal of the sale deed, the Assessing Officer found that the

fair market value determined by Stamp Valuation Authority at

Rs.3,10,69,500/-. The assessee was asked to explain why capital gain not

be worked out considering the sale value as per provision of section 50C of

the I.T.Act. In reply the assessee stated that the value adopted for stamp

4 ITA No.221/Rpr/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-2012

duty purpose is exorbitantly high and is not representing fair market value of

the property. The Assessing Officer observed that the fair market value of

the land was determined at Rs.97,28,300/- as against the transaction made

for the land of Rs.55,00,000/-. Considering the facts of the case, the

Assessing officer considered the cost of land at Rs.1,55,34,750/- as per

provisions of section 50C of the Act being 50% of total cost of acquisition of

Rs.3,10,,69,500/-. Since the assessee has shown Rs.10,80,400/- as short

term capital gain, the Assessing officer determined Rs.1,12,49,550/- as

short term capital gain and added the same to the income of the assessee.

capital gain by adopting actual consideration i.e. Rs.75,00,000/- as full value

of consideration received instead of Rs.1,55,34,750/- as taken by the

Assessing officer.

the capital gains of Rs.80,34,750/- as the value to be adopted for

registration purposes is the stamp valuation. Whereas the CIT(A) without

calling for details and also no report was filed by the assessee, suo moto

dealt on the issue and deleted the addition. He submitted that the CIT(A)

should have called for the comments of the Assessing Officer for deciding

the issue and prayed for allowing the appeal of the revenue.

5 ITA No.221/Rpr/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-2012

dismissal of the appeal of the revenue.

authorities and materials available on record. Prima facie, the arguments of

ld D.R. that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without considering the

fact that the sale consideration is undervalued and the Assessing officer was

correct in applying the stamp duty valuation and further the assessee has

not supported with any valuation report whereas ld A.R. emphasized that the

assessee in the course of assessment proceedings has made a reference that

the value adopted for stamp duty purpose is exorbitantly high and is not

representing fair market value of the property. Since the assessee has not

prayed for referring the matter to Departmental Valuation Officer or the

Assessing Officer has not referred the matter to the DVO, we are of the

opinion that both the parties have not dealt on the issue of valuation of the

property in a proper manner. The contention of ld A.R. that the assessee

has made a reference to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer but could

not support with any documentary evidence and prayed that an opportunity

be provided to substantiate her claim. Considering the material facts and

information on record, we are of the opinion that the Revenue and the

assessee have not referred the matter to the DVO. We, therefore, remand

6 ITA No.221/Rpr/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-2012

the entire disputed issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, who will

consider the submissions of the assessee and claims and pass an order on

merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

of appeal, these are also remitted to the file of the Assessing officer for fresh

adjudication. The assessee is at liberty to make its submissions in respect of

lease hold property as was pleaded before us before the Assessing officer.

assessee has not made out a case of reasonable cause for delay in filing the

cross objection. Therefore, we dismiss the cross objection as infructuous.

purposes and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 15 /01/2018. Sd/- sd/- (N.S Saini) (Pavan Kumar Gadale) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER Raipur; Dated 15 /01/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS

7 ITA No.221/Rpr/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-2012

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. DCIT,-1, 32/32, Bunglows, Bhilai. 2. The Respondent. Smt. Sangeeta Chawla, Plot No.21/6, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai. 3. The CIT(A)- Bhilai 4. Pr.CIT-Bhilai 5. DR, ITAT, Raipur 6. Guard file. //True Copy//

BY ORDER,

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Raipur