Shri Amritlal Shah, Advocate, SIROHI v. ITO, SIROHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V.D. RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 172/JU/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06 SHRI AMRIT LAL SHAH ADVOCATE VS. INCOME-TAX OF FICER SHANTI NAGAR SIROHI (RAJ.). SIROHI. (PAN ACUPS 6011 M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AMIT KOTHARI A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AVADHESH KUMAR D.R. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA A.M : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.01.2010 OF LEARNED CIT(A) JODHPUR. 2. THE ASSESSEE AN ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION HAD FIL ED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 17.05.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1 34 737/-. ON GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS FILED THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PLOT ON 05.10.2004 AND THE CAPITAL GAINS DECLARED WERE NOT ON THE BASIS OF DLC RATE APPLIED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES. THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT WAS RS.2 50 000/- WHEREAS THE VALUATION AS PER STAMP VA LUATION AUTHORITY WAS RS.4 95 000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE ISSUED NOTICE U/S . 148 IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED MAY BE TRE ATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS IN WHICH HE OBJECTED TO THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER IN TERMS OF SEC TION 50C SUB-SEC.(2). THE VALUATION OFFICER DETERMINED THE VALUATION AT THE SAME AMOUNT I.E. AT RS.4 95 000/-. COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTE R CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS IN WHICH INTER ALIA THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED INSTANCES OF SALES OF OTHER PLOTS IN 2 THE AREA THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE SALE CO NSIDERATION AS PER DLC RATE AT RS.4 95 000/-. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE AO S ACTION. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE CIT(A) JODHPUR HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2 36 515/- WHICH IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) JODHPUR HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THERE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 147/148 BY THE LEARNED AO. THE NOTICE U/S. 148 IS BAD IN LAW. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE VALUA TION OF SALE PRICE AT RS.4 95 000/- MADE BY ITO ON THE BASI S OF VALUATION REPORT AND ASSESSED CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.2 36 515/-. 4. INTEREST HAS WRONGLY BEEN CHARGED. 3. AS FAR AS GROUND NO.1 IS CONCERNED THE SAME IS GENERAL IN NATURE. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 2 SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THA T THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER REGISTERED DEED WAS LESS THAN THE VALUATION AS PER STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES THEREFORE IN TERMS OF SECTION 50C THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. WE THERE FORE UPHOLD THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147. 4. THE FACTS APROPOS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND N O. 3 ARE NOT DISPUTED. THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER REGISTERED DEED WAS RS.2 50 00 0/- WHEREAS AS PER THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY THE SAME WAS RS.4 95 000/-. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE VA LUATION OFFICER WHO ALSO DETERMINED THE VALUATION AT RS.4 95 000/-. SECTION 50C SUB-SEC . (1) READS AS UNDER : 50C. (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCR UING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER THE VALUE SO ADOPTED O R ASSESSED SHALL FOR THE 3 PURPOSES OF SECTION 48 BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VA LUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. ON BARE READING OF THIS SECTION IT IS EVIDENT THAT IF THE VALUATION AS PER THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY IS MORE THAN THE STATED CONSIDE RATION IN THE SALE DEED THE VALUATION AS PER STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY HAS TO BE ADOPTED. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 5. GROUND NO. 4 RELATING TO CHARGING OF INTEREST B EING CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GIVE ITS CONSEQUEN TIAL EFFECT. 6. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.02.11. SD/- SD/- (V.D. RAO) (S.V. MEHROTRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER DATED : 9 TH FEBRUARY 2011 *AKS/- COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. INCOME-TAX OFFICER 4. CIT 5. D/R 6. GUARD FILE