9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 127 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Held that - AR of the assessee filed the written submission on the issue in question but it is noted that the ld. AR of the assessee at the time of hearing of the case could not controvert the observations of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in question. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the AO was justified in reopening the case of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act as substantial income had escaped assessment within the provision of Section 147 - Decided against assessee. Adoption of value of impugned land sold u/s 50C - Held that - As noted that at the time of physical inspection of impugned land the DVO observed that the land was neither straight nor square nor rectangular which had several turns after every 50 sq.ft. It is also noted that no comparative sale instance had been given by the DVO as to adjoining land of the assessee. It is noteworthy to mention that there are six co-owners of the land and the land in question cannot be sold without their consents. It is also noted that the AO had taken the case of Ms. Roopali Dhingra, another co-owner of the property with the case of the assessee which case was decided by the ld. CIT(A), Bikaner (camp at Jaipur) vide appeal no. 684/Bikaner/2010-2011 dated 31-03-2015 in favour of Ms. Roopali Dhingra deleting the additions made by the lower authorities (APB page 39 to 60). It is thus observed that although the lower authorities have taken the recourse of Ms. Roopali Dhingra case with the assessee during the assessment order and made the additions yet the case of Ms. Roopali Dhingra has been decided by the ld. CIT(A), Bikaner (camp at Jaipur), supra deleting the additions. Therefore, the question does not arise to make addition in the case of assessee. In this view of the matter and also taking into consideration the decision of ITAT , Hyderabad Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Smt. S. Suvarna Rekha (2010 (10) TMI 1051 - ITAT HYDERABAD ), we find that the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in adopting the value of the impugned land at ₹ 1,67,52,562/- instead of ₹ 1,56,39,110/- u/s 50C of the Act. Thus Ground of the assessee are allowed. Addition made by the AO u/s 55A(a) - Held that - The assessee and other 5 co-owners obtained a report from registered valuer relating to cost of land as on 01-04-1981. Shri P.N. Bhargava, registered valuer gave his report dated 7-07-2008 and adopted the value as at 01-04-1981 at ₹ 200/- per. Sq. Yd. Accordingly, the valuation of the land comes to ₹ 37.55 lacs. It is also noted that the AO in the case of Ms. Roopali Dhingra applied the rate at ₹ 40/- per. Sq. Yd and made the valuation at ₹ 6,89,747/-. It is also noted that on the basis of the case of Ms. Roopali Dhingra, the case of the assessee was reopened and the AO adopted the same rate as made in the case of Ms Roopali Dhingra and thus worked out the valuation of the land as at 01-04-1981 but the case of Ms. Roopali Dhingra has been decided by the ld. CIT(A), Bikaner (camp at Jaipur) supra deleting the additions, therefore, the question does not arise to make addition in the case of assessee. During the course of hearing, assessee filed the family chart of other assessee s (Co-owners) relating to their additions. From the chart, it is noted in the case of Kavita Bhargava wherein the ld. CIT(A)-II, Jaipur vide order dated 13-05-2016 had deleted the similar addition made by the AO u/s 55A(a) for which the Department has not filed any appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A). It is also noteworthy to mention that both the ld. CIT(A) s have decided the similar issue in favour of other co-owners i.e. Ms. Roopali Dhingra and Smt. Kavita Bhargava. It is also noted that such issue has also been decided by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hiraben Govindbhai Patel (2014 (3) TMI 153 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ) and also CIT vs. Puja Prints (2014 (1) TMI 764 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) in favour of the assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Adoption of valuation of land sold under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act. 3. Computation of indexed cost of acquisition. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Notice Issued under Section 148: The assessee argued that the notice issued under Section 148 was without any reason to believe, making the reassessment proceedings invalid. The original return was filed on 30-07-2008, and the notice under Section 148 was issued after the AO observed undisclosed capital gains from a land sale. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action, stating that the notice was issued with prior approval from the CIT-1, Jaipur, and was justified as substantial income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal upheld this view, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO, which allows reopening if there is prima facie material, and dismissed the assessee's ground. 2. Adoption of Valuation of Land Sold under Section 50C: The assessee contested the valuation of land at ?1,67,52,562 by the DVO, arguing that the valuation ignored several factors such as the land's location away from the main road, irregular shape, and joint ownership. The CIT(A) upheld the DVO's valuation, noting that the DVO had made necessary adjustments and conducted a site inspection. The Tribunal, however, found merit in the assessee's objections and noted that similar issues in the case of co-owner Ms. Roopali Dhingra were decided in favor of the assessee by the CIT(A), Bikaner. The Tribunal also referred to the ITAT Hyderabad Bench's decision in ACIT vs. Smt. S. Suvarna Rekha, which allowed a 10% variation in valuation. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground, adopting the valuation of ?1,56,39,110 instead of ?1,67,52,562. 3. Computation of Indexed Cost of Acquisition: The assessee argued that the AO erred in computing the indexed cost of acquisition at ?6,89,747 instead of ?34,48,340, based on a valuation report by a registered valuer who determined the FMV as on 01-04-1981 at ?200 per sq. yard. The AO, however, adopted ?40 per sq. yard. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's valuation, citing contradictions in the valuer's report and the absence of reliable sale instances from 1981. The Tribunal disagreed, noting that similar additions in the case of co-owners were deleted by the CIT(A), Bikaner, and CIT(A)-II, Jaipur, and supported by High Court decisions. The Tribunal thus allowed the assessee's ground, accepting the registered valuer's report. Separate Judgments: The Tribunal applied the same reasoning and conclusions to the appeal of Shri Harish Bhargava, as the facts and grounds were similar to those in the case of Smt. Deepali Bhargava. The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the validity of notice under Section 148 but allowed the grounds related to the adoption of land valuation and computation of indexed cost of acquisition. Conclusion: The appeals of both assessees were partly allowed, with the Tribunal upholding the validity of the notice under Section 148 but ruling in favor of the assessees on the issues of land valuation and indexed cost of acquisition.
|
