Smt. Mohini Shrivastava, Bhopal v. THE ITO-2(1), Bhopal

ITA 886/IND/2016 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 88622714 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN ACWPS6390R
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 886/IND/2016
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Mohini Shrivastava, Bhopal
Respondent THE ITO-2(1), Bhopal
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 28-10-2016
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 24-08-2016
Judgment Text
SMT. MOHANI SHRIVASTAVA ITA NO. 855/IND/2016 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE .. ..!' #$ # !% BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 886/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SMT. MOHINI SHRIVASTAVA BHOPAL PAN ACWPS 6390R :: APPELLANT VS ITO 2(1) BHOPAL :: RESPONDENT REVENUE BY SHRI P.K. JAIN ASSESSEE BY SHRI R.P. MOURYA ! ' #$ DATE OF HEARING 6.10.2016 %&'( #$ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28.10.2016 * O R D E R PER SHRI D.T. GARASIA JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) UJJAIN DATED 30.6.2016. SMT. MOHANI SHRIVASTAVA ITA NO. 855/IND/2016 2 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE SOLD A PIECE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ADMEASURING 0.238 HECTARE OR 59 ACRE FO R SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.64 LAKHS AS PER SALE DEED WHER EAS IN THE SUBMISSIONS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SAME AT RS.23 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PIECE OF LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS A RAW UNDEVELOPED AND UNIRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL LAND AND AS SUCH IT VALUE IS LESS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AGREE WITH THE SAME AND CONSIDERING THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR BH OPAL AT RS. 64 LAKHS WORKED OUT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 42 17 350/-. ON APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRM ED THE SAME. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SI DES. WE FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE SMT. MOHANI SHRIVASTAVA ITA NO. 855/IND/2016 3 TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRICHAND MAKHIJA S. ITO; ITA N O. 426/IND/2016 AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 8.6.2016 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER :- THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.2.2016 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-22 NEW DELHI HAVING CONCURRENT JURISDICTIO N OF CIT(A) INDORE. 2. THE ONLY GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.3 89 750/- BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE TEJPUR GADBADI TEHSIL INDORE WHICH WAS IN THE JOINT NAME OF SHRI PANKAJ MAKHIJA FOR RS.10 79 500/- (MARKET VALUE) ON 6.8.2005 BUT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1 50 000/- (1/2 SHARE) FOR THE CALCULATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N. AFTER INDEXATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RS. 30 475/- AS INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN T HE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE CONSIDERING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE CALCULATED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON AGRICULTURAL LAND AT RS.4 20 225/- WHEREAS IN THE COMPUTATION FILED THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SAME AT RS.30 475/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE ADDED RS.3 89 750/- T O THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SMT. MOHANI SHRIVASTAVA ITA NO. 855/IND/2016 4 4. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMED THE ACTION O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE ME THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THE ADDITION WITHOUT ANY BASIS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO IS NOT A TECHNICAL EXPERT INSTEAD OF ESTIMATING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO TH E DVO FOR VALUATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE JODHPUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF MEGHRAJ BAID VS. ITO; (2008) 114 TTJ (D) 84 1. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS CALCULATED IN TH E CASE BY THEM IS FULLY JUSTIFIED. 7. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT AN EXPERT IN CALCULATING THE VALUE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD AND AS SUCH IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON HIM TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR VALUATION OF THE SAME. A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY JODHPUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MEGHRAJ BAID VS. ITO; (2008 ) 114 TTJ (D) 841 WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO REFER THE ISSUE TO THE DVO. CONSIDERING SMT. MOHANI SHRIVASTAVA ITA NO. 855/IND/2016 5 THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER I DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR CALCULAT ION OF THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ACCORDINGLY COMPUTE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN THEREON. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER T HE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR CALCULATION OF THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL L AND AND ACCORDINGLY COMPUTE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN THERE ON AFTER PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28 OCTOBER 2016. SD/- SD/- ( ..!') (..) #$ (O.P.MEENA) (D.T.GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER (') / DATED : 28 OCTOBER 2016. SMT. MOHANI SHRIVASTAVA ITA NO. 855/IND/2016 6 DN/