The ITO, Ward 1(2), JUNAGADH v. Shri Ajaykumar P Agravat, JUNAGADH

ITA 1229/RJT/2010 | 1998-1999
Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 122924914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ABKPA8945R
Bench Rajkot
Appeal Number ITA 1229/RJT/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, Ward 1(2), JUNAGADH
Respondent Shri Ajaykumar P Agravat, JUNAGADH
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 07-01-2011
Assessment Year 1998-1999
Appeal Filed On 20-10-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH SMC RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI A.L. GEHLOT (AM) I.T.A. NO. 1229/RJT/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99) ITO WD.1(2) VS SHRI AJAYKUMAR P AGRAVAT JUNAGADH ROYAL APARTMENT JUNAGADH PAN : ABKPA8945R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : NONE ASSESSEE BY : SHRI JAI RAJ KUMAR O R D E R A.L. GEHLOT : THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-IV RAJKOT DATED 05-07-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND IS RAISED IN THE APPEAL: 1. THE LD.CIT(A)-IV RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.273000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOU NT OF DIFFERENCE OF VALUATION OF LAND SOLD AS DETERMINED BY THE STATE G OVERNMENT. 2. THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 06 DAYS. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE DELAY IS CONDONED. 3. NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOW EVER I PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE REAL SALE PRICE IN THE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF PLOT OF LAND SOLD BY HIM D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED LAND BEARING S.NO.38 FOR RS.50 000 FROM SHRI NAVINCHANDRA A AGRAVAT THROUGH PURCHASE DEED DATED 16-10-1997. ON ENQUIRY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTICED TH AT ORIGINALLY THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY SHRI NAVINCHAQNDRA A AGRAVAT ON 09-04-1972 FOR R S. 1 72 500 AND THAT THE VERY SAME LAND WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAME PERSON FOR RS.50 000. AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TURN UP BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRESUMED THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD F OR RS.3 28 000 ON THE BASIS OF ITA NO.1229/RJT/2010 2 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO LAND RECORDS OF THE STATE GOVE RNMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.2 73 000 BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF RS.50 000 SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT BASED O N THE LAND RECORDS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT AT RS.3 28 000. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) D ELETED THE ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-IV AHMEDABAD ORDER DATED 12-03-200 3 DELETING THE ADDITION IN THE CASE OF SMT. PARVATIBEN THAVARDAS AND TARACHAND BACHOMAL RAMCHANDANI TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE SHOWN TO HAVE SOLD FOR RS.55 000 THE SAME LAND WHICH CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FOR RS.50 000. THE CIT(A) NOTED THE RELEV ANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A)-IV AHMEDABAD ON PAGE 4 OF HIS ORDER WHEREIN IT IS STAT ED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD JUST TRAVELLED ON MERE GUESS WORK WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQ UIRY. MERE VALUATION BY VALUATION OFFICER CANNOT MAKE A BASE FOR MAKING ADDITION. TH E ORDER OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF PIONEER PUBLICITY CORP & ORS VS DCIT (2000) 67 TTJ (DEL-TRIB) 471 WAS RELIED UPON. SIMILARLY THE CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AHMEDABAD BENCH TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS H.N. ARORA ITA NO.3409/AHD/97 ORDER DATED 17-02-2002. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE. THE ADMITTED FACT OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND FO R RS.50 000 ON 16-10-1997 WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY A PURCHASE DEED. THE SAID LAND WAS SO LD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.55 000. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS AS TO WHY THE LAND PURCHASED FOR RS.1 72 500 ON 09-04-1972 BY SHRI NAV INCHANDRA A AGRAVAT HAD TO BE SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.50 000 BY THE SAME PERS ON. IN OTHER WORDS THE EXAMINATION WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FROM THE SELLER OF THE LAND VIZ. SHRI NAVINCHANDRA A AGRAVAT WAS SHIFTED ON THE ASSE SSEE BY ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY SHRI NAVINCHANDRA A AGRAVAT HAD TO SELL THE LAND FOR RS.50 000 TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS IN MY HUMBLE OPINION IS AN UNTENA BLE PROPOSITION. THE DOCUMENTED PRICE OF THE PROPERTY IS ONLY RS.50 000. THE SELLE R OF THE LAND MIGHT HAVE PURCHASED THE SAME LAND FOR A HIGHER PRICE. BUT THE REASON FOR S ELLING THE LAND AT A LOW PRICE THAN WHAT IS PAID BY THE SELLER FOR THE SAME LAND COULD ONLY BE EXPLAINED BY THE SELLER HIMSELF. THE RECORDS PRODUCED BEFORE ME DOES NOT INDICATE AN IOT A OF EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO EXAMINE THE SELLER SHRI NAVINCHANDRA A AGRAVAT FOR ASCERTAINING THE REASON AS TO WHY HE SOLD THE LAND FOR RS.50 000 WHEN HE HIMSELF PURCHASED THE SAME LAND FOR RS.1 72 500 IN THE YEAR 1972. THE ASSESSEE DENIED OF HAVING PAID ANYTHING MORE THAN THE DOCUMENTED PRICE FOR THE LAND. IN SUCH A SITUATION WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUSPECTED THE PURCHASE C ONSIDERATION IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING ITA NO.1229/RJT/2010 3 OFFICER HIMSELF TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID MORE THAN THE DOCUMENTED PRICE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH EVIDENCE AND CONSIDERING TH E TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I FIND THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT IN SUBSTITUTING RS.3 28 000 ON PRESUMPTION WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVI DENCE ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE SAME. I THEREFORE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHT LY DELETED THE ADDITION. I CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 - 01-2011. SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER RAJKOT DT : 07 TH JANUARY 2011 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-IV RAJKOT 4. THE CIT-III RAJKOT 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT RAJKOT