9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, ground No. 1 of the assessee appeal is dismissed. Nature of property - Unexplained investment OR residential property - Assessee had duly submitted the valuation report of the registered valuer but Assessing Officer did not accepted the same nor referred the case to valuation Officer, which is bad in law - whether the property is commercial property or residential property? - HELD THAT:- We observed that the Registrar Department has made valuation for the property considering it be a commercial property, where as the same was residential property from the documents furnished. We observed that the assessee has sold the above property on 05.02.2015 where the valuation of same half portion of the property was made by the Registration Department at Rs. 17,17,516/-. Further perusing the calculation sheet of DLC value, the Assessing Officer failed to note that the valuation was made by the Registrar Department considering it to be a residential property AO and CIT (A ) erred in not appreciating the facts that Valuation Report of sub registration was submitted and perused by the lower Authorities . The property was sold before the Assessment Year. On perusing the Sale deed wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee treating it as unexplained income. The addition so made by the Id. AO was challenged by the assessee before the Id. CIT(A) who rejected the same via order dated 26.02.2019. Now the assessee has filed appeal before us. 4. The AO observed that during the year under consideration assessee had purchased a plot Chondpole Bazar, Jaipur. The said property has been purchased jointly by the assessee and Sh. Nazar Mohd. In the F.Y. 2013-14 dated 24.05.2013. the plot has been purchased in amount to Rs. 28,00,000/- in which the share of the assessee is 50%. The assessee has paid against the share of plot an amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- against the purchase cost and transfer expenses separately as per his share. But the value as per Stamp Authority of property purchase is Rs. 43,94,029/- share of the assessee in the above property is 50 % that comes to Rs. Rs. 21,97,015/-, which is more than by Rs. 7,97,015/- in comparison to actual purchase consideration Rs. 14,00,000/-. Therefore difference amount of Rs. 7,97,015/- is hereby added to the total income of the assessee as undisclosed income during the year under consideration. As per provisions of Income-tax Act, value as per S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(IT)A. No. 06/JP/2022] [PB 2-23] 2. Vijay Vikram Dande Kurnool vs. ADIT (Int. Taxation) [ITA 947/Hyd/2016] Since, no transfer order u/s 127 was made, therefore, whole of the resultant proceedings are null and void resulting into quashing of the assessment proceedings Ground No. 2: THAT THE LD. AO HAD ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 7,97,015/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. ASSESSEE HAD DULY SUBMITTED THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER BUT ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME NOR REFERRED THE CASE TO VALUATION OFFICER, WHICH IS BAD IN LAW : Assessee had purchased a residential house at Bhopji Ka Dera, Khetri House Road, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur for Rs. 28,00,000/- jointly with Mr. Nazar Mohd which has DLC value of Rs. 43,94,029/-. [PB 24-32] Assessee's share in above property was 50%. During the assessment proceedings, assessee submitted the valuation report from the registered valuer [PB 33-42] to AO as evident from the note sheet of the department. [PB 4345] Further, assessee had submitted the calculation sheet obtained from registration department from where it can be found that how the calculation of DLC value of Rs. 43,9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a. ITO vs. M/s Aditya Narain Verma (HUF) 4166/Del/2013 (PB 63-72) b. ITO vs. Estate of Maharaja Karni Singh of Bikaner [241/JODH/2017/ 166 DTR 29 (Jodh. Trib.)] In view of above addition of Rs. 7,97,015/- deserved to be deleted. 7. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. He contended that the AO has made the addition based the Registration papers. It was of the satisfaction of the AO and observed that during the year under consideration assessee has purchased a plot Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. The said property has been purchased jointly by the assessee and Sh. Nazar Mohd. in the F.Y. 2013-14 dated 24.05.2013. The plot has been purchased in amount to Rs. 28,00,000/- in which the share of the assessee is 50%. The assessee has paid against the share of plot an amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- against the purchase cost and transfer expenses separately as per his share. But the value as per Stamp Authority of property purchase is Rs. 43,94,029/- share of the assessee in the above property is 50% that comes to Rs. 21,97,015/-, which is more than by Rs. 7,97,015/- in comparison to actual purchase consideration Rs. 14,00,000/-. Therefore diffe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the valuation sheet of DLC value which was made by the Registrar Department considering it to be a residential property. The ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider that the AO submitted an affidavit in support of his contention. Further the main question is arrived whether the property is commercial property or residential property, we observed that the Registrar Department has made valuation for the property considering it be a commercial property, where as the same was residential property from the documents furnished. We observed that the assessee has sold the above property on 05.02.2015 where the valuation of same half portion of the property was made by the Registration Department at Rs. 17,17,516/-. Further perusing the calculation sheet of DLC value, the Assessing Officer failed to note that the valuation was made by the Registrar Department considering it to be a residential property which is reproduced as under:- Further, we observed that the value of property as on 05.02.2015 wasRs. 17,17,516/- so value for the same property on 07.05.2013 will be less than Rs. 17,17,516/-. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the revised value of the above p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
