SMT. DIPIKABEN RAKESHBHAI SOPARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 541/SRT/2018Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 July 2022AY 2012-135 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, noting that the assessee failed to provide any explanation or evidence despite multiple opportunities. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer and the disallowance of the Section 54F claim were confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold two properties and the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 7,36,212/- under Section 50C, considering the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value. The assessee also claimed a deduction under Section 54F.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition under Section 50C was justified and whether the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 54F, given the lack of compliance and evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Appellant represented by None Respondent represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.DR Date of hearing 06/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 06/07/2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 28/05/2018 for the Assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITO Ward 1(2)(1) erred in making an addition of Rs. 7,36,212/- u/s 50C to the total income of the appellant. Further, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-2 also erred in not allowing the appeal of the appellant on this ground with the remark that in spite of several opportunities given, the appellant has not furnished the status of the Town Planning Scheme by SUDA.

2. Further, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITO, Ward 1(2)(1) erred in not allowing the claim of deduction U/s 54F made by the appellant WITHOUT EVEN REFERRING TO THE SAID DISALLOWANCE IN THE AO. Further the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-2 also erred in not allowing the appeal of the appellant on this ground.

Dipikaben Rakeshbhai Sopariwala Vs ITO 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend alter or delete any other ground or grounds at any time during the pendency of the appeal.”

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s Radhekrishna Textiles, filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 04/01/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 4,66,170/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee along with her other co-owners sold property admeasuring 10724 sq. mtrs. in block No. 39, R.S. No. 23/2/2 at village Bhanodara, Tal: Choryasi, district-Surat for sale consideration of Rs. 1.286 crore on 14/07/2011. The assessee also sold another property admeasuring 11331 sq. mtrs in block No. 42, R.S. 23/1+2/3 at village Bhanodara, Tal: Choryasi, district-Surat for a sale consideration of Rs. 1.359 crore on 14/07/2011. The assessee was having 1/9th share in both the properties. The Assessing Officer in order to ascertain certain facts, called details from the assessee. Ongoing through the details, the Assessing Officer noted that for block No. 39, the Jantri value as per stamp duty for the property at R.S. No. 23/2/2 at village Bhanodara, Tal: Choryasi, district- Surat was Rs. 1,60,91,837/-. The assessee has 1/9 share and hence deemed valus of consideration in the hand of assessee is Rs. 17,87,982/-, thereby resulting a difference of Rs. 3,58,123/-. And in respect of property at block No. 42, the Jantri value as per stamp duty for the property at R.S. 23/1+2/3 at village Bhanodara, Tal: Choryasi, district-Surat was Rs. 1,70,00,000/-. The assessee was having 1/9th share in both the property, hence, the deemed sale consideration in her share is Rs. 18,88,888/- thereby resulting a difference of Rs. 2 Dipikaben Rakeshbhai Sopariwala Vs ITO 3,78,089/- and thus, there was a total difference of Rs. 7,36,212/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly issued notice as to why the addition of the difference be not made as per provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee has not furnished any explanation, accordingly, the addition of Rs. 7,36,212/- was made under Section 50C of the Act to the total income of assessee.

3.

On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the additions were upheld. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition by recording his view that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity but the assessee failed to provide any details or ay submission in support of his claim. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld. The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) also made a claim for exemption under Section 54F of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) recorded that the assessee has not furnished any evidence despite granting several opportunities, accordingly, the grounds of appeal

was also dismissed. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.

4. None appeared on behalf of assessee despite the service of notice of hearing of appeal on assessee by way of registered post on more than two occasions. This appeal came up for hearing on 02/07/2021, 14/09/2021, 29/11/2021, 16/02/2022, 28/03/2022, 09/05/2022 and on toady i.e. 06/07/2022. Today neither the assessee nor any Authorised representative has appeared, therefore, we left with no option except to decide the appeal of the assessee on the basis of submission of the learned senior departmental representative (ld. Sr. DR) for

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →