M/S DOTIVALLA COURT (AOP),AMRAVATI vs. I.T.O. WARD -1, AMARAVATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 58/NAG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 September 2022AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal is considering an appeal against the confirmation of addition of long-term capital gain on the sale of land. The Assessing Officer questioned the assessee's valuation of the property as on 01.04.1981.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an AOP engaged in housing development, transferred a plot of land. The land was originally purchased by the father of the AOP members in 1947 and later devolved through inheritance and oral partition.

What were the issues?

The primary issue is the correct determination of the cost of acquisition for long-term capital gains, specifically the valuation of the property as on 01.04.1981.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 48,Section 2(42A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri R B Atal
For Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe

PER R.S. SYAL, VP: These three appeals by the assessee arise out of a common order dated 09-11-2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-1, Nagpur, in relation to the assessment years 2010- 11 to 2012-13. Since the facts and the grounds for all the appeals under consideration are mutatis mutandis similar, I am proceeding to dispose them by a consolidated order.

2.

The only issue raised in the appeal for the A.Y. 2010-11 is against the confirmation of addition of long term capital gain amounting to Rs.3,89,334/- on a certain land transferred by the assessee.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an AOP engaged in development of housing project. The AOP comprised of two brothers, namely, Shri Rohinton Hosangji Dotivala and Shri Sham Hosangji Dotivala. Shri Hosangji Hormasji Dotivala, father of the above named members of the AOP, purchased a plot of land in 1947 for a sum of Rs.40,000/-.

1.

The father passed away on 25-04-1959. Smt. Kurshid, wife of late Hosangji Hormasji Dotivala, became the owner. She also passed away on 22-12-1996. The property was apportioned by the three children by an oral partition. Substantial part of the property came to the share of two individuals who became members of the AOP, which has been subjected to tax. Certain long term capital gain was declared by the assessee. The AO observed that the value of property as on 01-04-1981 was taken by the assessee at a higher figure. On a reference made to the Sub-registrar, Amaravathi vide letter dated 29-06-2009, the District Valuation Officer (DVO) determined the fair market value of land. By taking such figure, the AO made an addition of Rs.3,89,334/-. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the addition by observing that similar issue was raised in earlier years. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

I have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen as an admitted position that the addition of Rs.3,89,334/- has been made by the AO by relying on a view taken in the earlier years. This issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal for the A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-

9.

Vide order dated 31-05-2016, a copy placed on record, the Tribunal in & 278/Nag/2012 has decided this issue against the assessee. Relevant discussion has been made in para 21 of the order, in which inconsistencies in the report of the assessee’s Registered Valuer have been pointed out by further observing that the assessee itself sold the land in April, 1981 and May 1981 at the rate of Rs.5 and Rs.6 per square feet respectively.

The ld. AR fairly admitted that the Tribunal decision on the issue in appeal is against the assessee. He, however, still tried to canvass a view that the Tribunal decided the issue incorrectly. On a specific query, the ld. AR admitted that there was no change in facts or law insofar as the years decided by the Tribunal vis-à-vis those under consideration are concerned. On a further query, the ld. AR admitted that no Miscellaneous Application was filed by the assessee against the Tribunal order. Respectfully following the precedent, I countenance the impugned order.

5.

Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of the other two appeals are similar to those for the A.Y. 2010-11. Following the view taken hereinabove, I uphold the impugned order for the other years as well.

6.

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st day of September, 2022.

More judgments on Section 48

All 1,457 judgments and leading authorities on Section 48 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →