MURARI MOHAN MONI,PURULIA vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), PURULIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 832/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 August 2024AY 2012-13Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)6 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained cash deposit to the AO for verification of the sale deed and cash receipt. For the Section 50C issue, the Tribunal noted the assessee's claim regarding circle rates and the need for DVO reference, but the order was cut short.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for unexplained cash deposits and a difference between sale deed value and circle rate under Section 50C. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits are explained by sale proceeds of property, and whether the addition under Section 50C is justified without a reference to the DVO for valuation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 133(6),Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Sheikh Muhammad Asif Ali, AR
For Respondent: Shri Gautam Patra, DR
Hearing: 20.08.2024Pronounced: 29.08.2024

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [learned CIT (A)] dated 23rd February, 2024, which is arising out of the assessment order under Section 147/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27th December, 2019.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: -

“1. That on the fact and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT appeal National faceless Centre (NFAC) Delhi erred in confirming the addition made by the AO ward 3(3) Asansol without appreciating the written submission made by the appellant in course of appeal proceeding.

3. That on the fact and circumstances of the case Ld. appellant authority (NAFC) Delhi erred in confirming the reason of Rs.30,64,460/- being the different arranging out of deed value and Circle rate u/s 50 where as it is mandatory of the part of the A.O refer the matter to DVO to for valuation.

4.

That on the fact and circumstances of the case Ld. The appellant reserve right to adduce further ground or grounds at the time of hearing of appeal before the I.T.Α.Τ.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and return for A.Y. 2012-13 electronically filed on 14th June, 2013, declaring income of ₹99,525/-. Thereafter, the case reopened by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act followed by validly serving notices under Section 143(2), 142(1) of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer called for

4. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), claiming that as regards to the addition made for violation of Section 50C of the Act, there has been an abnormal increase in the stamp duty value and the matter needs to be referred to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for assessing the fair market value. As regards the unexplained cash deposit, it was stated that the share from sale proceeds of immovable property was received in cash on various dates and the same has been deposited in the bank. However, the learned CIT (A) was not satisfied and he dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

The learned counsel for the assessee made a prayer for restoring all the issues to the file of the learned Assessing Officer with a direction that for the purpose of assessing the fair market value of the immovable property in question, reference may be made to the DVO and so far as unexplained cash deposit issue is concerned, copy of sale deed is enclosed which can be verified by the learned Assessing Officer as assessee has received his share of sale consideration in cash from the sale of immovable property.

6.

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued supported the orders of the learned lower authorities.

8.

As regards to ground no.3, the issue in brief is that the assessee sold jointly owned immovable property at a consideration of ₹32 lacs. Stamp duty value of the said property is at ₹75,51,636/-. The difference of ₹41,53,036/- being the excess of stamp duty value over the sale consideration, the assessee has been subjected to the addition for his share at ₹30,64,460/-. Before us it claimed on behalf of the assessee that when the property was purchased in the year 2008, a circle rate was calculated at the rate of ₹3285 per decimal and some parts of the property was purchased at ₹11604.83 per decimal but the circle rate applied by the registrar for the purpose of calculating the stamp duty is ₹38136.55 per decimal. It is claimed that there has been an abnormal increase of 329% in the circle rate in one year five months and 1161% in just 2 years 11 months, whereas the cost inflation index has increased by 20% and 23% respectively. It is further claimed before us that considering this abnormal increase in the circle rate, a request was made before the learned CIT (A) that the matter needs to be referred to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for assessing the fair market value.

9.

Even though the learned Departmental Representative has opposed the request made by the learned Counsel for the assessee, however considering the facts of the case mainly the abnormal increase in the circle rate we find that the interest of justice would prevail in favour of both the parties if the matter is restored back to the file of the learned

10.

Ground no.1 & 4 being general in nature and no specific submission made by the assessee, the same is dismissed.

11.

Ground no.4 is general in nature which needs no adjudication.

12.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.08.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →