MAHENDER SINGH,MEERUT vs. ITO, NOIDA

O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Noida, dated 24.02.2017, pertaining to the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1) That the total value of land taken at Rs. 30,05,000/- as against of Rs. 15,00,000/- for which amount the sale deed has been executed, without Considering the others facts of the case, the land was in litigation and the government of UP has resumed this land and compensation has been awarded to Sh. Khusi Ram S/o Chajjumal Sharma (Original Owner) and not to the assessee. In this regard the letter of Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) Greater noida, Gautam Budh Nagar and the litigation papers were filed with the AO as well as Ld. CIT(Appeals), Noida.

2) That without considering the facts of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has passed this order which is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3) That as regard the source of investment regarding the purchase of this land, the appellant has submitted that out of agriculture income and dairy income, he has invested the amount of ½ share but the LD CIT (Appeals) has also not accepted the appellant version.

The assessee was having half share into such property. He contended that Assessing Authority adopted the sale consideration as per stamp valuation.

However, the learned CIT(A) granted relief to the extent of actual sale consideration, but failed to consider the fact that assessee was not the sole owner of the land in question. He, therefore, contended that the assessee was not given meaningful opportunity by the Assessing Officer. Had the Assessing Authority provided adequate opportunity, the assessee could have explained the true and correct facts before the Assessing Officer.

It is seen from the record that the AO did not provide effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee and proceeded to frame the assessment ex parte to the assessee without verifying the correct facts. Further, the learned CIT(A) has not adverted to the contention of the assessee that the assessee was not the sole owner of the property. It was in joint ownership with one Shri Krishan Gopal Bansal.

Therefore, the entire sale consideration could not have been attributed to the assessee. Therefore, having considered the facts available on record, I am of the considered view that lower authorities ought to have verified the facts as stated by the assessee. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the assessing Authority to verify the correctness of the claim of the assessee that the land in question was under the joint ownership and the assessee was the owner of half of such property. If find correct, the AO would restrict addition to the extent of 50% in the hands of the assessee. I order accordingly.

Order pronounced in open court on 04.12.2023.