Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT Audit :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: form 3cd :: empanelment :: cpt :: TDS :: VAT RATES :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: due date for vat payment
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

Shri Pravin V. Vora, 101, Sudama Kutir, Station Road,Bhayander(W) Vs. The nACIT, Circle 2, Thane
January, 23rd 2015
                  ,  Û `'  

     IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI

 [^ ] , Û    Û]   ãá,    ¢

          BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

                SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                ./I.T.A. No.514/Mum/2012
            ( [ [ / Assessment Year : 2008-09
Shri Pravin V. Vora,      / The nACIT, Circle 2,
101, Sudama Kutir,             Thane
                           Vs.
Station Road,Bhayander(W)
    . /   . / PAN/GIR No. : AAIPV 8198G
     ( /Appellant)        ..      (× / Respondent)
        / Appellant by:                        Shri Sanjay Parikh
      ×   /Respondent by:                    Shri Akhilendra Yadav


               / Date of Hearing                            :22.01.2015
               /Date of Pronouncement :22.01.2015

                               / O R D E R

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

        This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.
CIT(A)II, Thane dt.5.10.2011 pertaining to A.Y.2008-09.

2.      The assessee has raised three substantive grounds of appeal. By
ground No.1, the assessee has assailed the assessment order claiming that
it was in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Ld. CIT(A)
grossly erred in confirming such assessment order.
3.      The assessee is an individual and is a partner in various firms
namely M/s. Sudama & Sons, M/s. Sudama Builder, M/s. Sudama Estate
                                    2                     ITA No. 514/M/2012





Agency & M/s. Sudama Ind. Development Co. The assessee is also
derived income from Long Term Capital Gain and income from other
sources.

3.1.   During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing
Officer noticed that the assessee has entered into     an agreement for
development. The total consideration was Rs. 55 lakhs. The matter was
referred to the Stamp Valuation authorities.      The Stamp Valuation
authorities vide letter dt. 4.8.2010 sent the Ready Reckoner rates. The AO
found that the rates prevailing during the period in consideration was
6300 per Sq.ft. and the total consideration was worked out at Rs. 1.58
crores. As the AO found that the assessee has under valued the property
by 65%, the matter was referred to the Government Valuation Officer for
determination of fair market value. The Valuation Officer vide letter dt.
22.12.2010 has estimated the consolidated value of the properties under
consideration at Rs. 1,49,97,000/-. The AO recomputed the Long Term
Capital Gain by taking sale consideration as per the Valuation Officer's
report and the net Long Term Capital Gain was recomputed at Rs.
97,35,560/-.

4.     The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) but without
any success.

5.     Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee claimed that the
Valuation Officer has violated the principle of natural justice by not
affording reasonable opportunity of being heard before determining the
fair market value of the property. To substantiate, the Ld. Counsel drew
our attention to the notice issued by the Valuation Officer and the order
u/s. 55A of the Act passed by the Valuation Officer.
                                     3                     ITA No. 514/M/2012


6.    In turn, the Ld. Departmental Representative supported the
assessment order.




7.    We have gone through the assessment order and the order of the
First appellate authority and the relevant documentary evidences brought
to our notice. We find that the notice u/s.55A of the Act is dt.22.12.2010
by which the assessee was asked to appear before the Valuation Officer
on or before 29.12.2010. In his order u/s. 55A of the Act, the Valuation
Officer refers to his notice dt. 22.12.2010 and also mentioned that the
assessee was asked to appear on or before 22.12.2010. However, in the
notice dt. 22.12.2010, the Valuation Officer asked the assessee of appear
or or before 29.12.2010 and the assessment order is dt. 28.12.2010. Thus,
it can be seen that there is definitely violation of principles of natural
justice. We, therefore, restore the issue to the file of the AO. The AO is
directed to direct the Valuation Officer to give a fair and reasonable
opportunity to the assessee to present his case and decide the issue afresh
after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

8.    Since we have restored the issue to the file of the AO, we do not
find it necessary to decide the other issues raised vide ground No. 2 & 3.

9.    In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed
for statistical purpose.

      Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 22nd
January, 2015

             Sd/-                                      Sd/-
     (JOGINDER SINGH )                          (N.K. BILLAIYA)
Û /JUDICIAL MEMBER                    / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
 Mumbai;  Dated : 22nd January, 2015
.../ RJ , Sr. PS
                           4        ITA No. 514/M/2012



    /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Appellant
2.   × / The Respondent.
3.    () / The CIT(A)-
4.     / CIT
5.    ,   , 
     / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6.   [  / Guard file.
                                / BY ORDER,
          ×  //True Copy//
                       / 
                    (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
                    ,  / ITAT, Mumbai

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Team

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions