Anjana Agarwal , Jaipur vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationITA No. 412/JP/2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the consideration for transfer of land is stated by the assessee and the stamp valuation authority's value is disputed and under reference or challenge before the stamp authority, section 50C(2) requires the Assessing Officer to refer the valuation to the Valuation Officer, and the value so determined by the Valuation Officer, not the disputed stamp valuation, is the basis for computing the full value of consideration. Where the Valuation Officer has determined the value under section 50C(2) and the stamp authority's revised valuation is subject to pending challenge, the Assessing Officer may not substitute the stamp valuation as the full value of consideration; the transferor's stated sale consideration, being at least equal to the Valuation Officer's figure, is to be accepted. Any subsequent variation in the stamp valuation arising from the final decision of the stamp authority may be rectified under section 155(15) read with section 50C within the period prescribed by that section.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Jh vkj-ih-rksykuh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Vh-vkj-ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 412/JP/2012 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09
The I.T.O. cuke Smt. Anjana Agarwal, Ward 1(4), Jaipur Vs. 8/33, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AHMPA 8158 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Ajay Malik, (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, (C.A.)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 24/11/2014 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 16/01/2015
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M.
This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated
24/02/2012 passed by the learned CIT(A)-I, Jaipur for A.Y. 2008-09.
The sole ground of appeal is against deleting the addition of Rs.
25,10,000/- as short term capital gain on the sale of property at G-103,
RIICO Industrial Area, Bagru.
2 ITA 412/JP/2012_ ITO Vs Smt. Anjana Agarwal
2. The learned Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had
sold property situated at G-103, RIICO Industrial Area, Bagru on
01/5/2007. The Stamp Valuation Authority had valued the property at
Rs. 8,25,000/- for stamp duty purposes. But the sale amount reflected
in AIR information on record was Rs. 33,35,000/-. The Assessing Officer
again verified this information from the Stamp Valuation Authority, who
had confirmed the revaluation done by the authority at Rs. 33,35,000/-.
The A.O. gave reasonable opportunity of being heard on this issue. It
has been submitted before him that the land was sold on 01/5/2007
with consideration of Rs. 8,25,000/- and the DLC value was Rs.
6,07,500/- at that time. The inspection carried out by the Stamp
Authority on 11/2/2008 after a lapse of more than nine months and
notice for demand raised on 11/07/2009, which was also almost 16
month after inspection. The buyer of the property had constructed the
building, which had been considered in the hands of appellant during
the inspection. The industrial plot of RIICO, the development rate of
RIICO had taken as DLC rate for the purposes of stamping and
valuation purposes, which had been taken @ 405 per sq.mts. and total
sale consideration was Rs. 6,07,500/- as per DLC value. The DLC rate
even date of reply i.e. 15/12/2010 of RIICO plot was 1650/-. Whereas
the Stamp Authority had taken DLC rate as on 01/5/2007 @ 2160 per 3 ITA 412/JP/2012_ ITO Vs Smt. Anjana Agarwal
sq.mtr. After considering the assessee's reply, the learned Assessing
Officer as per Section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the
Act) had assessed capital gain on the basis of value taken at Rs.
33,35,000/- by the Stamp Authority. Accordingly, short term capital gain
was calculated at Rs. 27,41,010/-.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the
assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A), who had allowed
the appeal fully by observing as under:-
"I do not concur with the submission of the A.O. in his report because to begin with the appellant has not filed any additional evidence. Given the inconsistency in the valuation of the said land she had requested under the provision of section 50C(2) for the matter to be referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer. As per this report the value of the land was determined at Rs. 8,10,000/-. Regarding the observation of the A.O. that the matter should be kept pending till the finalization of the value of the land by the Additional Collector (Stamps), Jaipur. It is seen that the value of the land was revised vide an order dated 08/7/2009 at Rs. 33,35,000/-. The matter has been under litigation in the court of Additional Collector (Stamps), Jaipur since then. There appears to be no justification in keeping the appellant proceedings under the Income Tax Act, pending in the case of appellant particularly as the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides for revision of the value of land as determined by the State Government Authority U/s 155(15). As and when the value is decided by the Additional Collector (Stamps) the A.O. may rectify the value of land as per section 155(15)
4 ITA 412/JP/2012_ ITO Vs Smt. Anjana Agarwal
read with Section 50C. As on date, the sale receipt shown by the appellant at Rs. 8,25,000/- on transfer of the land is more than that determined by the DVO at Rs. 8,10,000/- U/s 50C(2) and so deserves to be accepted.
In view of the above discussion the value of land sold by the assessee is taken at Rs. 8,25,000/- U/s 50C(3) and the impugned addition of Rs. 25,10,000/- is deleted."
4. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. The learned D.R. argued
vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. At the outset,
the learned A.R. for the assessee relied upon the finding given by the
learned CIT(A).
5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and
perused the material on record. The learned D.R. has not controverted
the finding given by the learned CIT(A). She has given detailed findings
on page No. 5 and 6 of her order and concluded that even subsequent
second sale was taken by the Stamp Authority @ 1650 per sq.mtr.
whereas DLC rate revalued by the Stamp Authority in assessee's case @
2160 per sq.mtr., which has been challenged before the Additional
Collector (Stamp), Jaipur and matter is pending before him. As per
Section 50C(2), the DVO had estimated value of the concerned property
at Rs. 8,10,000/-. Therefore, there is no justification in applying sale
consideration at Rs. 33,35,000/-. If the learned CIT(A)'s observation is 5 ITA 412/JP/2012_ ITO Vs Smt. Anjana Agarwal
that if any variation in valuation came on account of final decision of
Additional Collector (Stamp), can be rectified U/s 155(15) within four
years from the end of the previous year, in which the order revising the
value was passed in appeal or revision or reference. Accordingly, we
confirm the order of the learned CIT(A).
6. In the result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16/01/2015.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼vkj-ih-rksykuh½ ¼Vh-vkj-ehuk½ (R.P.Tolani) (T.R. Meena) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 16th January, 2015
*Ranjan
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The ITO, Ward 1(4), Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Smt. Anjana Agarwal.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A)-I, Jaipur.
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT, Jaipur
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 412/JP/2012)
vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free