9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee in the sale deed to be full value of consideration - the Tribunal had rightly not relied upon the report of the DVO – the order of the Tribunal is upheld – Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 877 of 2010 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 5-3-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Anita Chaudhry,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. CM No.353 CII of 2013 1. Allowed as prayed for. CM stands disposed of. CM No.354 CII of 2013 2. The document Annexure R.1 is taken on record. CM stands disposed of. 3. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 69B of the Act and the assessment was completed at net taxable income of ₹ 1,87,46,970/- vide order dated 31.12.2008, Annexure 1 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Ludhiana [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 13.3.2009, Annexure 2, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal deleting the addition of ₹ 1,87,71,730/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69B of the Act. Not satisfied with the order, the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 26.11.2009, Annexure 3, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue and also dismissed the cross objections filed by the assessee. Hence the present appeal by the revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... got the wasika registered and has already affixed the stamp duty to be paid on the consideration of the land and no penalty or additional stamp duty is required to be paid by the appellant. In view of Annexure R.1, the full value of consideration shown in the sale deed was held to be the proper consideration which was received by the assessee. 9. Further, the Tribunal while adjudicating the appeal had recorded as under:- 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. The assessee before us during the year had purchased land and building for a total consideration of ₹ 40 lakhs. The assessee had paid stamp duty of ₹ 3.60 lakhs as determined by the authorities as per approved stamp duty rates and further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee. 10. A perusal of the aforesaid shows that the addition was sought to be made on the basis of the report of the DVO wherein the DVO had valued the property on the basis of the rates adopted for the purpose of stamp duty by treating the property to be for commercial usage whereas the land had not been converted from agricultural land into commercial land by the Government under change of land use. As noticed above, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector vide order dated 24.2.2011, Annexure R.1 has accepted the value of the property as depicted by the assessee in the sale deed to be full value of consideration. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal had rightly not relied upon the report of the DVO. Thus, no error could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
