9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the property from the Departmental Valuation Officer without assigning any reason. The addition made by the Assessing Officer under the circumstances is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hari Om Garg [ 2019 (5) TMI 1834 - ITAT AGRA] while referring to the various decisions of the Hon ble High Court including that of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT [ 2014 (6) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under such facts and circumstances are not sustainable and the same are liable to be set aside. Addition made by the lower authorities is not sustainable and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted. Appeal of the assessee stands allowed. - Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Abhishak Bansal, CA For the Respondent : Shri Divakar Chakraborty, Addl. CIT-DR ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.11.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) ] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning any reason. Both the lower authorities, therefore, have failed to act according to the statutory provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act and summarily rejected the plea of the assessee to get fair value of the property from the Departmental Valuation Officer without assigning any reason. The addition made by the Assessing Officer under the circumstances is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hari Om Garg v. ITO in ITA No.342/Agra/2017 order dated 31.05.2019, wherein, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal while referring to the various decisions of the Hon ble High Court including that of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 83, has held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under such facts and circumstances are not sustainable and the same are liable to be set aside. The relevant part of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra) is reproduced as under: 8. In the present case, neither, the AO nor the ld. CIT(A) has made any efforts to crystalize the actual value of investment by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidering the report of approved valuer submitted by the assessee. The Hon'ble High Court further held that Section 50-C of the Act is a rule of evidence in assessing the valuation of property for calculating the capital gain. The deeming provision under Section 50 C (1) of the Act is rebuttable. It is well known that an immovable property may have various attributes, charges, encumbrances, limitations and conditions. The Stamp Valuation Authority does not take into consideration the attributes of the property for determining the fair market value in the condition the property is a offered for sale and is purchased. He is required to value the property in accordance with the circle rates fixed by the Collector. The object of the valuation by the Stamp Valuation Authority is to secure revenue on such sale and not to determine the true, correct and fair market value on which it may be purchased by a willing purchaser subject to and taking into consideration its situation, condition and other attributes such as it occupation by tenant, any charge or legal encumbrances. 11. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad in the case of Dr. Shahsi Kant Garg V. CIT 285 ITR 0158 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o allow the AO an opportunity to patch up the weak part of his case and to fill up the omission. In my opinion, a party guilty of remissness and gross negligence is not entitled to indulgence being shown. In this context, I would like to make a reference to a decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tatia Skyline Health Farms Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (Chennai) 203 : (1999) 70 ITD 387 (Chennai). In this decision, on the assessee's request that the case be sent back to the AO for another round of enquiry and fresh assessment in accordance with law. the Bench, rejecting the assessee's request has held that the remand order should be made in very rare and exceptional case, for example, if at original stage, patently grave error was committed by the original authority or that the order was made in haste owning to the limitation or that the first appellate authority had violated the rules of natural justice. Nothing like this has happened on the present case. The Bench has further observed that the Courts have also cautioned the Appellate Authorities by holding that remand should be made only in those cases where the original authorities have not pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arties which is not the function of a judicial authority like the Tribunal. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of 'Parusram Pottery Works Co. Ltd Vs. ITO', 106 ITR 0001 (SC)] observed as follows - It has been said that the taxes are the price that we pay for civilization. If so, it is essential that those who are entrusted with the task of calculating and realising that price should familiarise themselves with the relevant provisions and become well- versed with the law on the subject. Any remissness on their part can only be at the cost of the national exchequer and must necessarily result in loss of revenue. At the same time, we have to bear in mind that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. (emphasis supplied) 19. The Coordinate Bench in the case of 'Dr. Sanjay Chobey (HUF) Vs ACIT', Circle - 2(3), Jhansi, ITA No 140/Agr/2018 (Order dated 02/07/2018), in almost similar facts allowed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
