Pravin V. Vora, Mumbai vs Assessee

सव[ौी जोगींि िसंह, Ûयाियक सदःय एवं नरे Ûि कुमार ǒबãलैáया, लेखा सदःय के सम¢

BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.514/Mum/2012 िनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2008-09 (िनधा[ Shri Pravin V. Vora, बनाम The nACIT, Circle 2, बनाम/ 101, Sudama Kutir, Thane Vs. Station Road,Bhayander(W) ःथायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AAIPV 8198G (अपीलाथȸ /Appellant) .. (ू×यथȸ / Respondent) अपीलाथȸ ओर से/ Appellant by: Shri Sanjay Parikh ू×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by: Shri Akhilendra Yadav

सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing :22.01.2015 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement :22.01.2015

आदे श / O R D E R

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)II, Thane dt.5.10.2011 pertaining to A.Y.2008-09.

2. The assessee has raised three substantive grounds of appeal. By ground No.1, the assessee has assailed the assessment order claiming that it was in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming such assessment order.

3. The assessee is an individual and is a partner in various firms namely M/s. Sudama & Sons, M/s. Sudama Builder, M/s. Sudama Estate 2 ITA No. 514/M/2012

Agency & M/s. Sudama Ind. Development Co. The assessee is also derived income from Long Term Capital Gain and income from other sources.

3.1. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has entered into an agreement for development. The total consideration was Rs. 55 lakhs. The matter was referred to the Stamp Valuation authorities. The Stamp Valuation authorities vide letter dt. 4.8.2010 sent the Ready Reckoner rates. The AO found that the rates prevailing during the period in consideration was 6300 per Sq.ft. and the total consideration was worked out at Rs. 1.58 crores. As the AO found that the assessee has under valued the property by 65%, the matter was referred to the Government Valuation Officer for determination of fair market value. The Valuation Officer vide letter dt. 22.12.2010 has estimated the consolidated value of the properties under consideration at Rs. 1,49,97,000/-. The AO recomputed the Long Term Capital Gain by taking sale consideration as per the Valuation Officer's report and the net Long Term Capital Gain was recomputed at Rs. 97,35,560/-.

4. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) but without any success.

5. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee claimed that the Valuation Officer has violated the principle of natural justice by not affording reasonable opportunity of being heard before determining the fair market value of the property. To substantiate, the Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the notice issued by the Valuation Officer and the order u/s. 55A of the Act passed by the Valuation Officer.

3 ITA No. 514/M/2012 6. In turn, the Ld. Departmental Representative supported the assessment order.

7. We have gone through the assessment order and the order of the First appellate authority and the relevant documentary evidences brought to our notice. We find that the notice u/s.55A of the Act is dt.22.12.2010 by which the assessee was asked to appear before the Valuation Officer on or before 29.12.2010. In his order u/s. 55A of the Act, the Valuation Officer refers to his notice dt. 22.12.2010 and also mentioned that the assessee was asked to appear on or before 22.12.2010. However, in the notice dt. 22.12.2010, the Valuation Officer asked the assessee of appear or or before 29.12.2010 and the assessment order is dt. 28.12.2010. Thus, it can be seen that there is definitely violation of principles of natural justice. We, therefore, restore the issue to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to direct the Valuation Officer to give a fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present his case and decide the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

8. Since we have restored the issue to the file of the AO, we do not find it necessary to decide the other issues raised vide ground No. 2 & 3.

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

Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 22nd January, 2015

Sd/- Sd/-

(JOGINDER SINGH ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) Ûयाियक सदःय/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदःय / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

मुंबई Mumbai; Ǒदनांक Dated : 22nd January, 2015 व.िन.स./ RJ , Sr. PS 4 ITA No. 514/M/2012

आदे श कȧ ूितिलǒप अमेǒषत/Copy षत of the Order forwarded to :

1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant

2. ू×यथȸ / The Respondent.

3. आयकर आयुƠ(अपील) / The CIT(A)-

4. आयकर आयुƠ / CIT

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

6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file.

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