9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court of India in the case of CB Gutam vs. UOI Ors. [ 1992 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] Also further find that the aforesaid decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India has been followed by the various Benches of the Tribunal including the Jaipur Bench in the case of Smt. Sita Bai Khetan vs. ITO [ 2016 (11) TMI 955 - ITAT JAIPUR] Since in the instant case such difference is less than 10 per cent and considering the fact that valuation is always a matter of estimation where some degree of difference is bound to occur, we are of the considered opinion that the AO in the instant case is not justified in substituting the sale consideration as against the actual sale consideration disclosed by the assessee. - Decided in favour of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of ₹ 10,30,000/- on sale of property representing plot No. 384, Niti Khand, Phase-I, Indrapuram, Distt. Ghazaibad. The sale consideration for purposes of computation of capital gains was declared as ₹ 80,00,000/- as shown in the sale deed. There is no dispute regarding the purchase consideration. Since the stamp duty had been paid on the sale consideration of ₹ 1,05,95,028/-, the assessee was show caused as to why the full value of consideration may not be taken as per stamp duty valuation as against ₹ 80,00,000/- shown in the sale deed. To this query the assessee pointed out that the stamp duty had been paid corresponding to the stamp duty valuation of ₹ 1,02,86,000/- whereas in the AIR, it had been incorrec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , he requested that the Appeal of the Assessee may be allowed by following the precedents. In order to support his contention he filed the photocopies of orders of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 7. On the contrary, Ld. DR opposed the request of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 8. I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records available with me, especially the orders passed by the revenue authorities alongwith case laws referred by the ld. Counsel of the assessee. I note that the Assessee has established the difference between the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and declared by the assessee is less than 10% and therefore, the issue is sq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench in ITA No. 1543/PN/2007 in the case of Rahul Construction vs. DCIT (supra) has held as under :- "We find that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT vs. Harpreet Hotels (P) Ltd. vide ITA Nos. 1156-1160/Pn/2000 and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee had dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue where the CIT (A) had deleted the unexplained investment in house construction on the ground that the difference between the figure shown by the assessee and the figure of the DVO is hardly 10 per cent. Similarly, we find that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Kaaddu Jayghosh Appasaheb, vide ITA No. 441/Pn/2004 for the asst. yr. 1992-93 and relied on by the learned counsel for the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
