ITO, Rampur v. Shri Naseem Ahmad, Rampur

ITA 3163/DEL/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 316320114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ABKPA8443N
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3163/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Rampur
Respondent Shri Naseem Ahmad, Rampur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 17-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 17-02-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 13-02-2012
Next Hearing Date 13-02-2012
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 25-06-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3094/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 C.O. NO.231/DEL/2010 (ITA NO.3163/DEL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 NASEEM AHMED S/O ANEES AHMED C/O MODERN CLOTH HOUSE BAZAR SAFDAR GANJ RAMPUR. PAN : ABKPA8443N VS. ITO II INCOME TAX BUILDING CIVIL LINES RAMPUR. ITA NO.3163/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ITO WARD- II RAMPUR.. VS. NASEEM AHMED S/O ANEES AHMED C/O MODERN CLOTH HOUSE BAZAR SAFDAR GANJ RAMPUR. PAN : ABKPA8443N ITA NO.3161/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ITO WARD- II RAMPUR.. VS. TASNEEM AHMAD S/O SHRI ANEES AHMED C/O MODERN CLOTH STORE BAZAR SAFDAR GANJ RAMPUR. ITA NO.3094/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.231/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3163/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3161/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.229/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3162/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.230/DEL/2010 2 C.O. NO.229/DEL/2010 (ITA NO.3161/DEL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 TASNEEM AHMAD S/O SHRI ANEES AHMED C/O MODERN CLOTH STORE BAZAR SAFDAR GANJ RAMPUR. VS. ITO WARD- II RAMPUR.. ITA NO.3162/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ITO WARD- II RAMPUR.. VS. SHAKAB AHMAD S/O SHRI ANEES AHMED C/O MODERN CLOTH STORE BAZAR SAFDAR GANJ RAMPUR. C.O. NO.230/DEL/2010 (ITA NO.3162/DEL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHAKAB AHMAD S/O SHRI ANEES AHMED C/O MODERN CLOTH STORE BAZAR SAFDAR GANJ RAMPUR. VS. ITO WARD- II RAMPUR.. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. SAMPATH & SHRI RAJ KUMAR ADVOCATES REVENUE BY : SMT. S. MOHANTHY DR ORDER PER BENCH: ITA NOS.3094/DEL/2010 AND 3163/DEL/2010 ARE CROSS APP EALS IN THE CASE OF SHRI NASEEM AHMED. C.O. NO.231/DEL/2010 IS ALSO FILED BY SHRI NASEEM AHMED IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08; ITA ITA NO.3094/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.231/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3163/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3161/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.229/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3162/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.230/DEL/2010 3 NO.3161/DEL/2010 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I N THE CASE OF SHRI TASNEEM AHMED AND C.O. NO.229/DEL/2010 IS FILED BY SH RI TASNEEM AHMED IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08; ITA NO.3162 /DEL/2010 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF SHAK AB AHMAD AND CO NO.230/DEL/2010 IS FILED BY SHRI SHAKAB AHMAD IN RESP ECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE SE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE COMMON THESE APPEALS AND CROSS O BJECTIONS WERE ARGUED TOGETHER BY BOTH THE PARTIES HENCE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ALL OF THEM ARE BEING DISPOSED BY THIS SING LE ORDER. 2. IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS THE COMMON ISSUE INVOLV ED IS REGARDING APPLICATION OF SECTION 50-C IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING PROPERTIES:- (I) INDUSTRIAL LEASEHOLD PLOT OF 600 SQ. MTRS. AT GREAT ER NOIDA DISTRICT GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR UP WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY THE PARTNERSHIP CONCERN OF THESE THREE ASSESSEES NAMELY M/S SNT ENTERPRISES AND IS STATED TO BE PURCHASED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE; AND (II) INDUSTRIAL PLOT AT GHAZIABAD MEASURING 615 SQ. MT RS (IN THE CASE OF SHRI NASEEM AHMED ONLY). 3. THE INDUSTRIAL LEASEHOLD PLOT AT GREATER NOIDA IS SH OWN TO BE SOLD FOR A CONSOLIDATED SUM OF ` 9 LAC VIDE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 21 ST AUGUST 2006 WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY THESE ASSESSEES FOR A TO TAL CONSIDERATION OF ` 7 LAC VIDE AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE D ATED 23 RD MAY 2005. THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 50-C AND FINDING THAT THE SAID PLOT WAS LOCATED WITHIN THE ARE A OF SURAJPUR OF GREATER NOIDA HAS APPLIED A PRESCRIBED RATE OF ` 6 00 0/- PER SQ. MTR. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF THE SAID PLOT AT ` 36 LAC INSTEAD OF ` 9 LAC DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SHORT- ITA NO.3094/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.231/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3163/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3161/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.229/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3162/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.230/DEL/2010 4 TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN COMPUTED THEREON. AFTER DEDUCTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF ` 9 LAC SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM T HE AFOREMENTIONED AMOUNT OF ` 36 LAC THE BALANCE OF ` 27 LAC HAS BEEN DIVIDED INTO THREE SHARES BEING ` 9 LAC EACH AND THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE EACH ASSESSEE. 4. SIMILARLY IN RESPECT OF INDUSTRIAL PLOT AT GHAZIA BAD WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY SHRI NASEEM AHMED FOR A SUM OF ` 2 LAC AN D WAS SOLD FOR ` 3 75 000/- VIDE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 18 TH JULY 2006 THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT PRESCRIBED RATE OF THE AREA WAS ` 3 000/- PER SQ. MTR AND ACCORDINGLY HE COMPUTED THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID PLOT AT ` 18 45 000/-. AFTER REDUCING A SUM OF ` 3 75 000/- THEREFROM THE BALANCE AMOUNT ` 14 70 000/- HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF SHRI NASEEM AHMED. 5. THE OTHER COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE THREE APPEALS IS REGARDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH IS SHOWN BY ALL T HESE THREE ASSESSEES AT A SUM OF ` 1 14 533/- EACH. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE TH E SAID AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT IT R EPRESENTED SALE PRICE OF THE POPULAR TREES AS WELL AS SALE OF BAGH BAHA R BUT NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WAS FILED DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNI TIES GIVEN IN THIS REGARD. HOWEVER CERTAIN PHOTO COPIES OF RECEIP T EXECUTED ON STAMP PAPER OF ` 10/- WERE FILED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORING ALL THESE EVIDENCES ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF E ACH OF THE ASSESSEE AT ` 35 000/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUANTUM O F AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN EARLIER YEARS WAS IN THE RANGE OF ` 30 000/ - TO ` 35 000/-. THUS THE REMAINING SUM OF ` 79 533/- HAS BEEN ADDED T O THE INCOME OF EACH OF THE ASSESSEES. ITA NO.3094/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.231/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3163/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3161/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.229/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3162/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.230/DEL/2010 5 7. ANOTHER COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IS REGARDING HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS WHICH HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AT `10 000/- PER MONTH AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN THE CASE OF EACH ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER:- NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER ESTIMATE OF ASSESSING OFFICER HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ADDITION NASEEM AHMED ` 1 20 000/- ` 61 104/- ` 58 896/- TASNEEM AHMED ` 1 20 000 ` 70 792 ` 49 208 SHAKAB AHMED - - NIL 8. ANOTHER ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF TASNEEM AHMED IS REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF ` 5 50 000/ WHICH REPRESENT CASH CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SMT. FA REEHA TARIOQ. ACCORDING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THIS DELETION HAS B EEN MADE BY THE CIT (A) ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT (A). 9. LEARNED CIT (A) DWELLING ON THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF LEASEHOLD INDUSTRIAL PLOT AT GREATER NOIDA HAS COME TO THE CON CLUSION THAT SINCE THE AGREEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE BUYER OF THAT LA ND WAS NOT REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY OF THE UP G OVERNMENT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO EVIDENCE WITH HIM TO SHOW TH AT THE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT WAS NOT CORRECT SECTION 50-C COULD NOT BE APPLIED. THEREFORE HE H AS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF RATE GATHERED FROM WEBSI TE OF THE REGISTRAR OF UP GOVERNMENT COULD NOT MAKE THE ADDITI ON AS SECTION 50C WAS NOT APPLICABLE. TAKING THE SIMILAR VIEW IN R ESPECT OF ITA NO.3094/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.231/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3163/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3161/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.229/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3162/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.230/DEL/2010 6 GHAZIABAD PROPERTY IN THE CASE OF NASEEM AHMED HE HA S ALSO DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. 10. SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF AGRICULTU RAL INCOME LEARNED CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HAS ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCO UNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO ` 40 000/-. 11. SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS ALSO H E HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO ` 40 000/-. 12. IN NUTSHELL THE POSITION IS AS UNDER:- IN THE CASE OF SHRI NASEEM AHMED I) THE DEPARTMENT IS AGITATING THE DELETION OF ADDIT ION OF ` 9 LAC IN RESPECT OF GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL PLOT; THE ADDITION OF ` 14 70 000/- IN RESPECT OF INDUSTRIAL LEASEHOLD PL OT AT GHAZIABAD; THE DELETION OF A SUM OF ` 39 533/- ON AC COUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME (WRONGLY WRITTEN IN THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL AS ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT). II) IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SUSTAINED ADDITI ON OF ` 40 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME; AND SUSTA INED ADDITION OF ` 40 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPEN SES HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED. III) IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS THE DELETION OF ` 9 LAC IN RESPECT OF INDUSTRIAL LEASEHOLD PLOT OF GREATER NOIDA HAS BEEN SUPPORTED; DELETION OF ` 14 70 000/- IN RESPECT OF LE ASEHOLD INDUSTRIAL PLOT OF GHAZIABAD HAS BEEN SUPPORTED; SUSTAIN ED ADDITION OF ` 40 000/- IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL IN COME IS ITA NO.3094/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.231/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3163/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3161/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.229/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3162/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.230/DEL/2010 7 AGITATED; SUSTAINED ADDITION OF ` 40 000/- IN RESPECT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IS AGITATED. IN THE CASE OF SHRI TASNEEM AHMED I) IN DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL THE DELETION OF ` 9 LAC O N ACCOUNT OF LEASEHOLD INDUSTRIAL PLOT OF GREATER NOIDA HAS BEEN AG ITATED; DELETION OF ` 39 533/- ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL I NCOME IS AGITATED (THOUGH WRITTEN IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT); IN GROUND NOS.3 AND 4 DELETION OF ` 5 50 000/- U/S 68 IS OPPOSED. II) IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS DELETION OF ` 9 LAC ON AC COUNT OF LEASEHOLD INDUSTRIAL PLOT OF GREATER NOIDA IS SUPPORTED ; IN GROUND NO.2 DELETION OF ` 5 50 000/- U/S 68 IS SUPPOR TED; IN GROUND NO.3 SUSTAINED ADDITION OF ` 40 000/- ON ACCO UNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS AGITATED; IN GROUND NO.4 SUSTA INED ADDITION OF ` 40 000/- IN RESPECT OF HOUSEHOLD WITHDR AWAL IS AGITATED. IN THE CASE OF SHAKAB AHMED I) IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL THE DELETION OF ` 9 L AC ON ACCOUNT OF LEASEHOLD INDUSTRIAL PLOT OF GREATER NOIDA IS AGITA TED; DELETION OF ` 39 533/- ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL I NCOME IS AGITATED. II) IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS DELETION OF ADDITION OF ` 9 LAC IS SUPPORTED; SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF ` 40 000/- ON ACC OUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS AGITATED; 13. HERE IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO MENTION A FEW F ACTS ABOUT THE ADDITION OF ` 9 LAC MADE IN THE CASE OF EACH OF THE ASSESSEES. THE PLOT ITA NO.3094/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.231/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3163/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3161/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.229/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3162/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.230/DEL/2010 8 AS MENTIONED EARLIER IS NUMBERED AS 129 SITUATED AT B LOCK 1 OF SECTOR C WITHIN THE SURAJPUR GREATER NOIDA DISTRICT GAU TAM BUDH NAGAR UP AND IS MEASURING 600 SQ. MTRS AND WAS PURCHASED BY A FIRM CONSTITUTED BY ALL THESE THREE ASSESSEES FOR A TOTAL CONSID ERATION OF ` 7 LAC VIDE AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE DATED 23 RD MAY 2005. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WAS FILED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SAID PLOT WAS SOLD FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF ` 9 LAC AGAINST SALE AGRE EMENT DATED 21 ST AUGUST 2006. COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT WAS ALSO FILED WI TH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS EFFECTED ON STAMP PAPER OF ` 100 ONLY. ON THE SALE OF SUCH INDUSTRIAL PLOT A LL THE THREE ASSESSEES HAVE DECLARED 1/3 RD SHARE OF ` 7 416/- AS SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ON THESE FACTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBTAINING THE RATES FROM WEBSITE HAS ESTIMATED THE SALE VALUE OF THIS PLOT AT ` 3 6 LAC ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION OF ` 9 LAC IN THE CASE OF EACH OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MADE. AS PER THE MAIN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT (A) SUCH COURSE COULD NOT BE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY REFERRING TO SECTION 50C AS THE TRA NSFER IF ANY WAS SIMPLY ON THE STAMP PAPER OF ` 100 AND SUCH TRANSFER D OES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 50C. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE SECTION 50-C WOULD BE APPLICABLE ON THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET EITHER BEING LAND OR BEING BUILDING OR BOTH IS L ESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVER NMENT (WHICH IS TERMED TO BE AS STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY) FOR TH E PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF THE STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED SHALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 4 8 BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED O R ACCRUED AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. REFERRING TO THESE PROVISIONS IT IS T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSFER UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NEITHER SUBJECT OF ADOPTION OR ASSESSMENT BY ANY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE GO VERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY. IT WAS A TRANSFER IN THE RE CORD OF UPSIDC ITA NO.3094/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.231/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3163/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3161/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.229/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3162/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.230/DEL/2010 9 ON SIMPLE PAYMENT OF TRANSFER FEE. IT IS ALSO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THAT ANY CONSIDERATION MORE THAN THE CONSIDERATION STA TED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS EITHER PAID BY THE PURCHASER OF THE PLOT OR RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ON THESE GROUNDS THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE FORE THE CIT (A) AND LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ACCEPTED SUCH CONTENTIONS. 14. AFTER NARRATING THE FACTS THE LEARNED DR VEHEME NTLY PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERSTATED THE SALE CONSIDERATION. THE MARKET PRICE OF THE SAID PLOT WAS MUCH HIGHER. THE ASSESSING OF FICER AFTER OBTAINING RATES FROM THE WEBSITE HAD ADOPTED THE RATE OF ` 6000/- PER SQ. MTR. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED WIT H AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING ON RECORD THE CIRCLE RATES OF T HE SAID PLOT. DESPITE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT SUCH EVID ENCE. THEREFORE SHE PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIG HT IN ADOPTING SUCH RATE AND THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE. LEARNED CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION AND HIS ORDER IN THIS RE GARD SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 15. ON THE OTHER HAND RELYING UPON THE FACTS MENTIO NED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E THE CIT (A) AND ALSO RELYING UPON THE FOLLOWING DECI SIONS IT IS THE CASE OF THE LEARNED AR THAT THE ADDITION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT (A) AND HIS ORDER IN THIS REGARD SHOULD BE UPHELD:- I) NAVNEET KUMAR THAKKAR VS. ITO 110 ITD 525 IN WHIC H IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHAT IS RELEVANT FOR THE APPLICABILIT Y OF SECTION 50C IS THAT THE PROPERTY WHICH IS UNDER TRANSFER BY TH E ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AT HIGHER VALUE FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE THAN THAT RECEIVED OR ACCRUING TO THE ITA NO.3094/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.231/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3163/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3161/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.229/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3162/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.230/DEL/2010 10 ASSESSEE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES HAS TO BE IN RESPECT OF VERY SAME PROPERTY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED A PROPERTY BY EXECUTING AN AGREEMENT WHICH WAS NOT REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTERIN G AUTHORITY SECTION 50C COULD NOT BE APPLIED. THIS D ECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED BY SMC BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. II) SMT. VIJAY LAXMI DHADDHA VS. ITO (2009) 20 DTR ( JP) (TRIB) 365 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 50C CANNOT BE INVOKED IN THE ABSENCE OF A REGISTERED DOCU MENT I.E. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAY MENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER. SINCE NO REGIST ERED SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED HIGHER AMOUNT OF THE CONSIDERATION AGAINST THE SALE OF PLOT THAN THAT SHOWN IN THE AGRE EMENT TO SELL THE ADDITION WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. III) CARLTON HOTEL (P) LTD. VS. ACIT 122 TTJ (LUCKNO W) 515 WHEREIN SIMILAR PROPOSITION HAS BEEN LAID DOWN. IV) ACIT VS. SMT. J.K. ENGINEER (2009) 14 MTC 104 (L UCKNOW TRIB). COPY IS PLACED AT PAGES 65 TO 72 OF THE PAPER BOOK WH EREIN ALSO SIMILAR PROPOSITION HAS BEEN LAID DOWN. 16. REFERRING TO THE ABOVE DECISIONS IT WAS SUBMITTED B Y THE LEARNED AR THAT THE ADDITION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED AND TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 17. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS I N THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE LAYING DOWN THE PROPOSITION THAT SECTIO N 50C COULD NOT BE APPLIED IN A CASE WHERE THE TRANSACTION IS NOT SUPPORTE D BY REGISTERED ITA NO.3094/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.231/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3163/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3161/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.229/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3162/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.230/DEL/2010 11 DOCUMENT AS THERE WILL BE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY VAL UE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR T HE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER AS THE SAME IS NECE SSARY INGREDIENT FOR APPLICATION OF SECTION 50-C. THE PR ESENT CASE RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 I.E. BEFORE THE INSERTION OF TH E WORD OR ASSESSABLE ALONG WITH THE WORDS ADOPTED OR ASSESSED WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE STATUTE BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) AC T 2009 W.E.F. 1.10.2009. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFOREMENTIONE D DECISIONS OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER O F THE CIT (A) VIDE WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED ADDIT ION COULD NOT BE MADE U/S 50-C OF THE ACT. IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED H ERE THAT NO CONTRARY DECISION HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY T HE DEPARTMENT THEREFORE WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE RELIEF GR ANTED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER U/S 50-C OF THE ACT. 18. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE ALSO DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) IN RESPECT OF SIMILAR ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI NASEEM AHMED IN RESPECT OF GHAZIABAD INDUSTRIAL P LOT. THE DELETION OF RS.14 70 000/- IN HIS HANDS IS UPHELD AND T HIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 19. NOW COMING TO THE GROUNDS RELATING TO ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME THE ADDITION HAS BEE N MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE INCOME SHOWN IS EXCESSIVE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT ` 35 000/- EACH. LEARNED CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CA SE HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO ` 40 000/- AND HAS GRANTED FURTHE R RELIEF OF ` 39 333/-. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE ITA NO.3094/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.231/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3163/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3161/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.229/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3162/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.230/DEL/2010 12 ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT LEARNED C IT (A) IS REASONABLE IN ESTIMATING THE DISALLOWANCE AT ` 40 000/ - IN THE HANDS OF EACH OF THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESSEE COULD NOT BRING AMPLE EVIDE NCE ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURAL IN COME. WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THESE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT (A) AND THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 20. AS WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) O N THIS ISSUE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES IN THEIR RESPECTI VE CROSS OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS WITH REGARD TO SUSTAINED ADDITIO N OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS DISMISSED. 21. SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF HO USEHOLD EXPENSES LEARNED CIT (A) HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT S OF EACH OF THE CASE THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE ETC. AND AFTER GIVING THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO ALL THESE PARTICULARS HE HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT ` 40 000/ - EACH IN THE CASE OF SHRI NASEEM AHMED AND SHRI TASNEEM AHMED. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ASSAIL THESE FINDINGS OF L EARNED CIT (A) BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES. THEREFORE AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE PART RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). THEREFORE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AGITATING PART RELIEF GIVEN T O THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. SIMILARLY THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH SUSTENANCE OF THIS PART ADDITION HAS BEEN AGITATED ARE ALSO DISMISSE D. 22. NOW WE ARE LEFT WITH THE ISSUE OF ` 5 50 000/- I N THE CASE OF SHRI TASNEEM AHMED. THOUGH THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE EVIDENCES WHICH HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY LEARNED CIT (A) TO GRANT THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER BUT HE ITA NO.3094/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.231/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3163/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3161/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.229/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3162/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.230/DEL/2010 13 SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE IS RESTOR ED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDI CATE THE SAID ISSUE AS IT IS THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT WHILE GRANTIN G THE RELIEF ON THIS ACCOUNT LEARNED CIT (A) HAS RELIED UPON CERTAIN MATE RIAL WHICH WAS NOT PRESENTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED DR ALSO DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION FOR SETTING ASIDE OF THIS ISSUE TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION AFTER HEARIN G BOTH THE PARTIES WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WI TH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE SAME AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY IN THIS REGARD. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED AND THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS SUPPORTING THIS DELETION WILL BECOME IN FRUCTUOUS IN VIEW OF RE-ADJUDICATION OF THIS ISSUE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. 23. IN THE RESULT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS EXCEPT IT A NO.3161/DEL/2010 IN THE CASE OF SHRI TASNEEM AHMED A RE DISMISSED; ITA NO.3161/DEL/2010 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AFORESAID; ALL THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID; AND ITA NO.3 094/DEL/2010 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.02.20 12. SD/- SD/- [K.D. RANJAN] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 17.02.2012. DK ITA NO.3094/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.231/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3163/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3161/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.229/DEL/2010 ITA NO.3162/DEL/2010 C.O. NO.230/DEL/2010 14 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES