Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, & SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG
PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XVII, Delhi dated 25/10/2013 for A.Y 2008-09.
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the facts that actual transferred immovable property in question i.e. W-18, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase – II, New Delhi took place vide the conveyance deed dated 21.09.2007 relevant to the A.Y 2008-09 which is only registered document.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in observing that the matter is same since the property in question is the same but the facts regarding applicability of section 50C of the Act and also the circle rate for computation of capital gain is different in the A.Y 2008-09 vis a vis A.Y 2007-08.”
At the time of hearing, at the very outset, it was conveyed to us that the issue raised in this appeal stands covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order dated 20.03.2015 passed in assessee’s own case for Assessment year 2007-08 in wherein the Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)’s finding in deleting the addition vide order dated 20.3.2015 in ITA No. 69/Del/2013 whose copy is enclosed. The ld. counsel for the department fairly admitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. But he relied on the findings of the A.O. given in this regard.
We have heard the rival submissions and have also gone through the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case [supra] and have also carefully treaded through the appellate order.
We find that against the order passed by the AO, the assessee was in appeal and the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee on the following reasoning:
“3. We have heard both the sides on the issue. The conveyance deed was registered in the financial year pertaining to A.Y 2008-09 whereby value has taken Rs. 11,72,000/-. The Finance [No. 2] Act, 2009 has inserted the word assessable meaning thereby that even if there is no registration, then also, the value assessable as per stamp valuation authority can be taken as full value of consideration received. This amendment has come into effect w.e.f. 1.10.2009 only. Therefore, it cannot be retrospectively implemented or applied. Further, the AO has himself has taken the year for working out the capital gain as A.Y 2007-08 and for that period no circle rates were specified by the tamp valuation authority for Delhi. The circle rates in Delhi have been notified only by Circular No. F.2(12)/Fin.[E.I]/Part File/Vol. 1(ii)/3548 dated 18.07.2007. Keeping all these facts in view, we find no fault in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we dismiss this appeal of the Revenue.”
After considering the findings of the ld. CIT(A), we have clearly noticed that the issue raised in this appeal stands fully covered by the order of the Tribunal dated 20.03.2015 Therefore, it is vividly clear from the above that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT ‘F’ Bench [supra]. Hence there is no merit in this ground taken by the Revenue. Accordingly, respectfully following the above decision,
we confirm the impugned finding of the ld. CIT(A) in this regard and dismiss the grounds raised in this appeal by the Revenue.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 25.05.2016.