Chaitanya M. Chaturvedi, Navi Mumbai vs Assessee

सव ौी जोगींि िसंह, याियक सदःय एवं नरे ि कुमार #ब$लै&या, लेखा सदःय के सम(

BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 554/Mum/2013 िनधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2009-10 (िनधा Chaitanya M. Chaturvedi, बनाम The ITO 11(1)(1), बनाम/ 1092, Vanshree Mumbai Vs. Co.Operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Sector-58, "A" Nerul Palm Beach Road, Navi Mumbai-400 706 ःथायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AAEPC 1309E (अपीलाथ, /Appellant) .. (ू.यथ, / Respondent) अपीलाथ, ओर से/ Appellant by: None

ू.यथ, क0 ओर से/Respondent by: Shri Premanand

सुनवाई क0 तार2ख / Date of Hearing :28.01.2015 घोषणा क0 तार2ख /Date of Pronouncement :28.01.2015

आदे श / O R D E R

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Mumbai dt. 7.12.2012 pertaining to assessment year 2009-

10.

2. The assessee has raised two substantive grounds of appeal. Ground No. 1 relates to the grievance that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not directing 2 ITA No. 554/M/2013

the AO to refer the case to Stamp Duty Valuation Officer and the second grievance relates to the adhoc disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 29,400/-.

3. As per the AIR filed by Joint Sub-Registrar, Class-2, Jalgaon-2, the Assessing Officer came to know that the assessee has sold an immoveable property valued at Rs. 23,11,250/-. The AO noticed that the assessee has not offered any income under the head "capital gain". The copy of the AIR information was made available to the assessee. The assessee was asked to furnish the copy of purchase and sale agreement alongwith working of capital gain. The assessee filed copy of purchase and sale agreement. The AO found that the purchase and sale agreement do not pertain to the property mentioned in AIR as there was of mismatch between the purchase and sale agreement filed by the assessee and the AIR information. The assessee was required to furnish the copy of agreement for sale in respect of property as shown in the AIR.

3.1. The assessee filed a detailed reply and explained that as per the sale agreement dt. 26.6.2008, the total sale agreement was Rs. 18 lakhs, the Stamp duty value of the same was at Rs. 46.22 lakhs. It was further explained that the assessee has never done any transaction involving registration of property amounting to Rs. 23,11,250/-.The AO made enquiries from the Sub-Registrar who filed a letter dt. 12.12.2011 and stated that the property sold by the assessee was held jointly with Shri Madhukar B. Chobe and the agreement value of which is Rs. 18 lakhs and the market value is Rs. 46.22 lakhs. The assessee was asked to explain why the Stamp Duty value should not be taken for the purpose of capital gains. The assessee replied that the said land is an agricultural land and therefore exempt from tax. The assessee was asked to justify the 3 ITA No. 554/M/2013

claim of agricultural land. On receiving no plausible reply, the AO proceeded by invoking provisions of Sec. 50C of the Act. The AO computed the capital gain at Rs. 23,11,250/-.

3.2. Proceeding further, the AO found that the assessee has debited the profit and loss account by expenditure under the head Business promotion, Conveyance, Electricity, Internet, Telephone & Travelling amounting to Rs. 1,47,000/-. The AO disallowed 20% and added a sum of Rs. 29,400/-.

4. Aggrieved by these two additions, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) but without any success.

5. In so far as the additions made on account of sale of property, the assessee requested the Ld. CIT(A) to direct the AO to refer the matter to the Stamp Valuation Officer which request was declined by the Ld. CIT(A).

6. Aggrieved by the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is before us.

7. None appeared before us. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. In so far as the valuation of the property is concerned, in our considered view, when the assessee has requested the Ld. CIT(A) to direct the AO to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer, the Ld. CIT(A) should have accepted the request of the assessee. We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to refer the matter to the DVO after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground No. 1 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

4 ITA No. 554/M/2013 8. Ground No. 2 relates to the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 29,400/-. As no details have been furnished, we decline to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 2 is accordingly dismissed.

9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 28th January, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (JOGINDER SINGH ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) याियक सदःय/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदःय / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

मुंबई Mumbai; 5दनांक Dated : 28th January, 2015 व.िन.स./ RJ , Sr. PS

आदे श क0 ूितिल#प अमे#षत/Copy षत of the Order forwarded to :

1. अपीलाथ, / The Appellant

2. ू.यथ, / The Respondent.

3. आयकर आयु7(अपील) / The CIT(A)-

4. आयकर आयु7 / CIT

5. #वभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai

6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.

आदे शानुसार/ ार BY ORDER, स.या#पत ूित //True Copy// उप/सहायक उप सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai