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: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: cpt :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT RATES :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TDS :: due date for vat payment :: empanelment :: form 3cd :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
 
 
From the Courts »
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  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

ITO, Ward 28 (2), New Delhi. Vs. Shri Upender Kumar Gupta, 4273, Gali Bhairon Nai Sarak, Delhi 110 006.
June, 04th 2015
          IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
               (DELHI BENCH `H' : NEW DELHI)

      BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                           and
       SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                         ITA No.4531/Del./2013
                    (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11)

ITO, Ward 28 (2),               vs.    Shri Upender Kumar Gupta,
New Delhi.                             4273, Gali Bhairon Nai Sarak,
                                       Delhi ­ 110 006.

                                             (PAN : AAEPG6222A)

      (APPELLANT)                                   (RESPONDENT)

              ASSESSEE BY : Shri P.K. Jain, Advocate
           REVENUE BY : Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR

                    Date of Hearing       : 01.06.2015
                    Date of Pronouncement : 03.06.2015

                                       ORDER

PER GEORGE GEORGE K., JM :

      This appeal, at the instance of the department, is directed against the

order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi

dated 28.05.2013. The relevant assessment year is 2010-11.




2.    The revenue has raised six grounds. Grounds No.1 & 2 relate to the

issue whether the CIT (A) is justified in allowing the appeal and directing

the Assessing Officer to refer the case for valuation of property to the

DVO and thereafter make an assessment as provided under section 50C(2)

and 50C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Grounds No.3, 4 & 5 relate to
                                     2              ITA No.4531/Del./2013

the issue whether the CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of

Rs.14,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained

cash credits.    Ground No.6 relates to the deletion of addition of

Rs.2,57,500/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disbelieving

the cost of improvement incurred on properties which was sold.

3.    We shall take up the issues ground-wise as under.

      GROUNDS NO.1 & 2

4.    The assessee had sold a property. The consideration shown in the

sale deed was Rs.15,00,000/-. While computing the capital gains, the

assessee has taken the sale consideration at Rs.15,00,000/-. The Assessing

Officer computed the capital gains after taking the circle rate/stamp duty

valuation which was at Rs.28,40,000/- as provided u/s 50C of the Act.

Therefore, the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.13,40,000/-

(Rs.28,40,000/- minus Rs.15,00,000/-).

5.    Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A). It

was submitted before the CIT (A) that the fair market value of the property

as per valuation report is only Rs.15,00,000/-. It was further submitted that

the assessee had objected to the adoption of the circle rate/stamp duty

valuation before the Assessing Officer vide his letter dated 01.01.2013.

Therefore, it was submitted that the valuation of the property was to be

referred to the DVO and assessment is to be completed subsequent to the

receipt of the valuation report of the DVO. The CIT (A) directed the
                                     3              ITA No.4531/Del./2013

Assessing Officer to refer the impugned property for valuation to the DVO

and on receipt of the valuation report, complete the assessment. The

relevant finding of the CIT (A) reads as under :-

      "4.4. It is apparent from the order of the AO that the AO
      has followed the deeming provisions of section 50C (1)
      without following the other provision u/s 50C(2) and has
      not referred the valuation of the property to the DVO when
      the assessee had objected and the assessee had in fact
      pleaded before the AO in the letter dated 01/01/2013 that
      the valuation of the property may be referred to the DVO
      and the valuation of the DVO should be adopted as
      provided u/s 50C(1), 50C(2) & 50C(3). After considering all
      the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view
      that the AO has not followed the complete provisions of
      section 50C(2) and accordingly, the AO is directed to refer
      the valuation to the DVO and make the assessment as
      provided u/s 50C(1), 50C(2) & 50C(3) and as such the
      alternate appeal of the assessee is allowed."


6.    The revenue, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us.

7.    Ld. DR relied on the assessment order. On the other hand, the AR

reiterated the submissions made before the Income-tax Authorities and

placed reliance on the findings of the CIT (A).

8.    We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on

record. On perusal of material placed on record, it is clear that assessee

had filed objections against adoption of the circle rate/stamp duty valuation

before the Assessing Officer (the objections filed by the assessee dated

01.01.2013 placed at pages 43 ­ 44 of the paper book filed by the

assessee.).   When assessee has filed objections before the Assessing
                                    4             ITA No.4531/Del./2013

Officer that circle rates are above the fair market value, the Assessing

Officer was duty bound to refer the impugned property for valuation to the

DVO before proceeding to make an assessment of long term capital gains.

The CIT (A) has only directed the Assessing Officer to refer the matter for

valuation to the DVO and thereafter conclude the assessment.           The

directions of the CIT (A) has legal sanctity by various judicial

pronouncements, including the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High

Court in the case of N Meenakshi vs. ACIT reported in 326 ITR 229.

Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order of CIT (A) on this

score and we uphold the directions of the CIT (A) as correct and in

accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly. Grounds no.1 & 2 are

rejected.



GROUNDS No.3, 4 & 5




9.    The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.14,00,000/- by

observing as under :-

      "7. During the course of assessment proceeding it was
      noticed that the assessee has deposited a sum of
      Rs.6,00,000/- on 11.02.10, Rs 3,00,000/- on 12.02.10 and a
      sum of Rs 5,00,000/- on 13.02.10 in his saving a/c no
      0221053000019589 with South Indian Bank Ltd Chandni
      chowk New Delhi. The assessee was asked to explain the
      source of deposit in his saving bank account. The assessee
      vide his letter dated 30th October 2012 submitted that the
      Cash deposited in account represent the advance received
      for and on behalf of Mrs. Anjana Gupta for prospective sale
      of property. The assessee was further asked to produce
                                     5                ITA No.4531/Del./2013

      confirmation of the same from prospective buyer vide order
      sheet entry dated 17.12.2012. However the assessee has
      failed to produce any confirmation. Hence in the absence of
      any confirmation the sum of Rs.14,00,000/- is added to the
      income of the assessee as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of
      Income Tax Act 1961."

10.   On further appeal, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was

deleted by the CIT (A). The relevant findings of the CIT (A) read as

follows :-

      "6.3. I have considered the order of the AO and the
      submissions of the assessee and I find considerable merit
      in the submission of the assessee that the AO is not justified
      to make the addition of the cash deposits without
      considering the simultaneous or corresponding cash
      withdrawals which are for the purpose of business. It is not
      uncommon for the business people to make frequent cash
      deposits and withdrawals in the bank accounts as per the
      requirement of business convenience. After considering all
      the case facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
      view that there is no proper justification for making the
      addition of Rs 14,00,000/- of the cash deposits and
      accordingly, the addition made by the AO is deleted."

11.   The revenue, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us.

12.   The ld. DR strongly supported the assessment order. On the other

hand, the AR relied on the findings of the CIT (A).

13.   We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on

record. The cash deposited of Rs.14,00,000/- in assessee's accounts were

duly and fully explained in the cash flow statement with supporting

evidence consisting of assessee's bank statements and the sale deed

executed by the assessee as General Power of Attorney for his wife,
                                     6               ITA No.4531/Del./2013

Anjana Gupta. The copies of the cash flow statement, bank statement and

various sale deeds are placed on record. The receipt of sale consideration

in cash is duly supported by the sale deeds. Therefore, the addition of

Rs.14,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act is unwarranted

and CIT (A) was justified in deleting the same. It is ordered accordingly.

Grounds No.3, 4 & 5 are rejected.

      GROUND NO.6

14.   The assessee has sold several properties and also claimed cost of

improvement on these properties. The cost of improvement claimed was

Rs.5,15,000/-.   The Assessing Officer disallowed 50% of the cost of

improvement while computing the long term capital gains and hence, made

an addition of Rs.2,57,500/-.    The relevant finding of the     Assessing

Officer in making the addition reads as follows :-

      "6. During the course of assessment proceedings, it is
      noticed that the assessee has claimed to have got renovation
      done in property No.4279, Gali Bhairav, Nai Sarak, Delhi
      amounting to Rs.2,65,000/- and property No. 1374,
      Maliwara, Vaidwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006 amounting
      to Rs.2,50,000/-, totaling to Rs.5,15,000/-. The AR of the
      assessee was asked to furnish the documentary evidence /
      bills & vouchers of these expenses. In response to this, the
      AR of the assessee has furnished receipts on plain paper
      from Shri Daulat Ram Saini s/o Shri Sukhlal Saini R/o
      Village Kesri Pura, Tehsil Baswa, Distt. Dosa, Rajasthan
      and claimed that the payment were made to Shri Daulat
      Ram Saini for carrying renovation work including the cost
      of material. The statement of Shri Daulat Ram Saini was
      recorded on oath on 05.03.2013 which is placed on record
      however, the statement of Shri Daultat Ram Saini was not
      satisfactory. The evidence produced by the AR is
                                      7             ITA No.4531/Del./2013

      insufficient and not reliable, hence in order to cover the
      possible leakage of revenue 50% of the amount claimed
      which comes to Rs.2,57,500/- is disallowed on account of
      non production of complete bills and vouchers."

15.   The CIT (A) deleted the addition by observing as under :-

      "7.3. I have considered the order of the AO and the
      submission of the assessee and I find considerable merit in
      the submission of the assessee that the AO is not justified to
      disallow the claim cost of improvement without any valid
      reasons and accordingly, the addition made by the AO is
      deleted."





16.   We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on

record. The confirmation of expenses on improvement of property before

its sale has been placed on record and statement of Shri Daulat Ram Saini

was recorded on oath. Confirmation and statement has been rejected by

the Assessing Officer on the ground "not satisfactory, insufficient and not

reliable" which are vague and based on surmises and conjectures.

Therefore, the CIT (A) is justified in deleting the same. Hence, ground

no.6 raised by the revenue is rejected.

17.   In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

   Order pronounced in open court on this 3rd day of June, 2015.



               Sd/-                                  sd/-
          (N.K. SAINI)                        (GEORGE GEORGE K)
      ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                        JUDICIAL MEMBER
                                  8   ITA No.4531/Del./2013

Dated the 3rd day of June, 2015
TS


Copy forwarded to:
     1.Appellant
     2.Respondent
     3.CIT
     4.CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi.
     5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi.
                                             AR, ITAT
                                           NEW DELHI.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Reengineering Software Re-engineering Software Reverse Engineering Software Reverse Development Software Change Modulation Software Conversion Software Re-creation Software Re-development

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