Smt. Taru Gandhi, Ahmedabad v. The Addl.CIT.,Rang-7,, Ahmedabad

ITA 1307/AHD/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 130720514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AFKPG9577P
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1307/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Taru Gandhi, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Addl.CIT.,Rang-7,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 07-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 07-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 07-01-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 26-04-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH B BB B BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI T.K.SHARMA T.K.SHARMA T.K.SHARMA T.K.SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AND AND AND SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING: 7-1-2011 DRAFTED ON:7- 1-11 ITA NO. 1307 /AHD/ 2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 SMT.TARU GANDHI PROP. OF M/S. RAJ MARKETING C-1 JAY TOWER ANKUR COMPLEX NARANPURA AHMEDABAD. VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-7 NAVJEEVAN TRUST BUILDING OFF ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD. PAN/GIR NO. : AFKPG 9577 P (A PPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSION. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN SR.D.R. O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXI AHMEDABAD DATED 5-4-2010. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AN D THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON OF `.38 356/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PURCHASE OF PROPE RTY. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E PURCHASED A HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATED AT DADA ESTATE PALDI OKAF DISTR ICT AHMEDABAD AS PER SURVEY NO.53 + 56 + 18 OF 362.59 SQ. MTS. SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED AT `.5 85 000/- ON 30-12-2005. THE SUB REGISTRAR PALDI AHMEDABAD ACCEPTED THE DEAL AFTER ADDING AN AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL STAMP DUTY OF `.3 225/-. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31-12-2005 ON - 2 - PAYMENT OF `.5 85 000/- BY CHEQUE DRAWN ON UNION BA NK OF INDIA. SINCE THE ASSESSEE PAID ADDITIONAL STAMP DUTY OF `.3 225/- IN ADDITION TO THE STAMP DUTY PAID OF `.49 200/- THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER THEREFORE ADDED PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF PURCHASE COST ON THE ADDITI ONAL STAMP DUTY PAID OF `.3 225/- AND MADE ADDITION OF `.38 350/- TO THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN APPEAL THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R. 5. THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHEREIN IT APPENDED AN ORDER OF THE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2357/ AHD/2008 IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. MINABEN M. PARIKH DATED 3-4-2009 AND STA TED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 50C(1) WERE APPLICABLE TO THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY AND N OT THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY THE ADDITION MADE REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AGREED W ITH THE ABOVE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS SHOWN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT DADA ESTATE PALDI OKAF DISTRICT A HMEDABAD AND THE SALE DEED EXECUTED SHOWED THE CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS `.5 85 000/- AND THE ASSESSEE PAID STAMP DUTY OF `. 49 200/- AND APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY. THE SUB-REGISTRAR PA LDI AHMEDABAD REGISTERED THE SALE DEED AFTER CHARGING ADDITIONAL STAMP DUTY OF `.3 225/- AS PER THE PREVELANT RATE IN THE AREA FOR SALE OF PROPERTY. T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF `.38 350/-UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT FOR THE ADDITIONAL VALUATION TO THE PROPERTY MADE BY THE SU B-REGISTRAR FOR COLLECTING ADDITIONAL STAMP DUTY OF `.3 225/-. IN A PPEAL THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND THAT THE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MINABEN M. PARIKH (SUPRA) HELD THAT :- - 3 - SECTION 50C IS THE DEEMING PROVISION FOR COMPUTATI ON OF CAPITAL GAINS AND FOR ARRIVING AT THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATIO N ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER AS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 48 OF THE AC T. THEREFORE THE DEEMING PROVISION AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 50C(1) AS PER THE RULE OF INTERPRETATION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED STRICTLY AND TH AT TOO FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS ENACTED. THE SAME CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO ANY OTHER PROVISIONS FOR WHICH IT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE APPLIED. THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STATE GOVT. FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYME NT OF STAMP DUTY IS THEREFORE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT OF COMPUTING FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF T RANSFER AS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 48 OF THE ACT SO AS TO COMPUTE THE CA PITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY. THE SAME CANNO T BE APPLIED IN REVERSE SITUATION WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT REFERRED TO IN SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. 8. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHA SED THE PROPERTY AND NOT SOLD THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE THE ABOVE QUOT ED DECISION SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT SHOW ANY GOOD REASON TO NOT TO FOLLOW THE ABOVE QUOTED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AB OVE QUOTED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.38 350/- MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE H EARING ON 7 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: AHMEDABAD 7 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2011. COMPILED AND COMPARED BY : PATKI - 4 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-XXI AHMEDABAD. 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT AHMEDABAD DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 07-01-2011 -------------- ----- 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 07-01-2011 ----- -------------- 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 07-01-2011 ---------- --------- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED 07-01-2011 --------- ---------- JM/AM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S ---------------- -- ------------------ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON ---------------- -- ------------------ 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK ---------------- -------------------- 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ---------------- -------------------- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ---------------- -- -------------------