Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Attachment on Cash Credit of Assessee under GST Act: Delhi HC directs Bank to Comply Instructions to Vacate
 Income Tax Addition Made Towards Unsubstantiated Share Capital Is Eligible For Section 80-IC Deduction: Delhi High Court
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA

Sh. Balvinder Kumar Joshi C/o Ravi Gupta Advocate E-6A, Kailash Colony New Delhi 110 048 vs. ITO, Ward 40(5) New Delhi
May, 20th 2019

Referred Sections:
Section 50C of the Act.
Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act,
Section 148
Section 143 (2) and 142 (1) of the Act

 

             IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                 DELHI BENCHES: `A', NEW DELHI

       BEFORE SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
    AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                      ITA No. 4909/Del/2016
                           AY: 2011-12

Sh. Balvinder Kumar Joshi         Vs.   ITO, Ward 40(5)
C/o Ravi Gupta                          New Delhi
Advocate
E-6A, Kailash Colony
New Delhi 110 048

PAN: AAGPJ6044F
 (Appellant)                               (Respondent)

        Department by        : Sh. S.N.Pandey, Sr.D.R.
        Assessee by :        : Sh. Rajesh Jain, C.A.

                    Date of Hearing :          14/05/2019
                 Date of Pronouncement:        17/05/2019

                               ORDER
PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER


     Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated
21/07/16 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-14, New Delhi on following grounds
of appeal:
"1. That on facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by
the Ld . CIT (Appeal) is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.
2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in
confirming the reopening of the case which is illegal and void ab initio
                                                           ITA No.4909/Del/16 AY:2011-12
                                                        Sh. Balvinder Kumar Joshi vs. ITO

as the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are not only
erroneous but also contrary to the facts of the case.
3. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in
confirming the invoking of the provisions of section 50C, when the
same are not applicable on the facts of the case.
4. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in
confirming the addition of Rs. 36,06,250/- by invoking the provisions
of section 50C.
5. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law
and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary
jurisprudence.
6. That the Appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of
appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal."






2. Brief facts of    case are as under.    Assessee filed its return of
income on 27/03/12 declaring total income of Rs.4,60,084/-. The
case was processed under section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (the Act). Assessee had income from sale of plots, rental
income and interest income during year under consideration. He
was also a partner in       firm and     received salary from                same.
Information was received that assessee had declared to have sold
property for Rs. 20 Lacs whereas price of property as per Circle
rate was Rs.56,06,250/-. Accordingly after recording reasons,
notice under section 148 was issued to assessee on 29/11/13.
Subsequently notices under section 143 (2) and 142 (1) of the Act
was   issued    to   assessee.   In   response   to   statutory          notices,
representatives of assessee appeared before Ld.AO and filed various
details as called for.



                                                                                       2
                                                       ITA No.4909/Del/16 AY:2011-12
                                                    Sh. Balvinder Kumar Joshi vs. ITO

3.      During    reassessment proceedings Ld.AO observed that
assessee had declared short sale price by Rs. 36,06,250/-as per
section 50C of the Act. Ld. AO called upon assessee to furnish
reasons as stamp duty value as per sale deed was Rs.56,06,250/-.
Ld. AO accordingly invoked provisions of section 50 C and made
addition of Rs.36,06, 250/-being difference in consideration shown
by assessee and stamp duty valuation adopted as per circle rate.
4.   Aggrieved by order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before
Ld. CIT (A) who confirmed addition made by Ld. AO. Aggrieved by
order of Ld. CIT (A) assessee is in appeal before us now.
5.   Ld.AR submitted that only issue raised by assessee in present
appeal is in respect of invoking provisions of section 50 C and
adopting   difference in consideration and     stamp duty valuation
without referring it to DVO. He submitted that issue may be set
aside to Ld. AO with a direction to refer the same to DVO. Ld.AR
submitted that assessee do not object for the valuation that would
be determined by DVO.
6.   Ld.Sr.DR did not object to same, though he submitted, it is
apparent that circle rate as per stamp duty valuation is more than
consideration declared by assessee in sale deed and therefore 50 C
automatically gets invoked.
7.   We have perused submissions made by both sides in light of
records placed before us.
8.   On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that assessee
had not made any request to refer       matter to   valuation officer.
However same has been made by representative before Ld. CIT (A)






                                                                                   3
                                                       ITA No.4909/Del/16 AY:2011-12
                                                    Sh. Balvinder Kumar Joshi vs. ITO

on behalf of assessee which has not been considered by Ld. CIT (A).
The Ld.AR before us also submitted that valuation as determined
by DVO is acceptable to assessee and therefore may be referred to
DVO. He     also submitted that,   before Ld.AO,   assessee was not
represented properly and therefore plea was not taken at time of
assessment proceedings.
9.     Considering totality of facts, and undertaking given by Ld.AR
on behalf of assessee regarding accepting valuation determined by
DVO, we are inclined to set aside this issue to Ld.AO with a
direction to refer the matter to DVO for determining fair market
price of property sold by assessee.
9.1.         Needless to say that assessee shall be granted full
opportunity of representing its case as per law. Accordingly
grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
10. In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for
statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17th May, 2019.


                   Sd/-                            Sd/-
       (PRASHANT MAHARISHI)                     (BEENA A PILLAI)
        ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                       JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dt.     17th May, 2019

*gmv




                                                                                   4
                                                 ITA No.4909/Del/16 AY:2011-12
                                              Sh. Balvinder Kumar Joshi vs. ITO



Copy forwarded to: -
1.  Appellant
2.  Respondent
3.  CIT
4.  CIT(A)
5.  DR, ITAT
                  -    TRUE COPY   -

                                         By Order,




                                       ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
                                        ITAT Delhi Benches




                                                                             5
                                                ITA No.4909/Del/16 AY:2011-12
                                             Sh. Balvinder Kumar Joshi vs. ITO



                                Date
Draft dictated on Dragon        16.5.19
Draft placed before author      16.5.19
Draft proposed & placed before
the second member
Draft discussed/approved by
Second Member.
Approved Draft comes to the
Sr.PS/PS
Kept for pronouncement on         17/05/19
            &
Order uploaded on :
File sent to the Bench Clerk
Date on which file goes to the AR
Date on which file goes to the
Head Clerk.
Date of dispatch of Order.




                                                                            6

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting