SH. RAMESH KUMAR GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-7(3), LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 516/CHANDI/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 September 2018AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was against the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly concerning the possession of the plot. The CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal and relying on the registration deed over documentary evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold a plot of land and the Assessing Officer made an addition to the capital gains based on a valuation report from the Assistant Valuation Officer. The assessee contended that the value should not exceed the registered value as possession and demarcation were not provided.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct valuation of a property for capital gains tax purposes, specifically whether the valuation report of the Assistant Valuation Officer should prevail over the registered value and other documentary evidence regarding possession.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but relates to capital gains computation.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & Dr.B.R.R. KUMAR

For Appellant: CA Sh. Ashok Goyal, CA
For Respondent: DR & Sh.Vivek Agrawal (Assistant
Hearing: 13.08.2018Pronounced: 04.09

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against

the order dated 5.3.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-3,

Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’]

2.

In this appeal the assessee has raised the following

grounds:-

1.

That the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ludhiana has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee, wherein, the addition of Rs. 7,64,000/- was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of valuation report of Asstt. Valuation Officer.

ITA No. 516/Chd/2018- Sh. Ramesh Kumar Goyal,, Ludhiana 2

2.

That the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ludhiana has failed to appreciate the fact that the value of plot could not be more than the registered value since neither the possession of the plot nor its demarcation were made available to the Assessee, since its purchase and to the date of sale.

3.

That the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ludhiana has erred in relying on the contents written in the normal course in registration deed, than the documentary evidences as placed before the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) about adverse possession of the plots.

4.

That even, the Valuation Officer has not disputed that the plot was not in the possession of the assessee and which fact has totally been ignored by the Worthy CIT(A)-3, Ludhiana and not even considered the binding observations of the Valuation Officer of the Department.

5.

That the addition sustained by the CIT(A) is against the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

The sole issue involved in this appeal is regarding the value

of the properly sold by the assessee for computation of capital

gains tax.

4.

The Assessing officer noted that the as per the Stamp

Valuation Authority / Sub

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →