Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Meena Tambi, Jaipur vs Acit, Jaipur on 31 August, 2017
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR
Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 242/JP/2017
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13
Meena Tambi, cuke A.C.I.T.,
D-50, Tambi Kunj, Hathi Babu Vs. Circle-3,
Marg, Banipark, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAKPT 2090 H
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 243/JP/2017
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13
Kavita Tambi, cuke A.C.I.T.,
D-50, Tambi Kunj, Hathi Babu Vs. Circle-3,
Marg, Banipark, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AATPT 9521 A
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 28/08/2017
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 31/08/2017
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. Both are the appeals filed by two different assessees emanates from the two separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Jaipur dated 25/01/2017 pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13.
2 ITA 242 & 243/JP/2017_ Meena Tambi Vs. ACIT
2. Both the appeals are being heard together and for the sake of convenience and brevity, a common order is being passed.
3. In both the appeals, there is common issue involved, which is against sustaining the addition made on account of difference in the sale consideration declared in the registered deed and value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty valuation by the Registering authority.
4. At the outset of hearing, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that each of these assessees were 3/10th share holders of a piece of land, which was sold at a sale consideration of Rs. 2.81 crores. Both of these assessees received Rs. 84.30 lacs each. The Stamp Valuation Authority valued the said property at Rs. 3,30,48,124/-. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The assessee requested to refer the matter for valuation as per provisions of Section 50C(2) of the Act. The ld AR submitted their request was not accepted. Since the assessee wanted to challenge the valuation made by the Registering Authority in terms of Section 50C(2) of the Act then Assessing Officer is bound by law to refer the matter to the valuation officer. The Assessing Officer failed to do so. Ld. AR pleaded to restore the issue to A.O. for doing needful.
5. I have heard both the sides. The ld. CIT(A) also did not refer the issue to the valuation officer Therefore, in the interest of justice and 3 ITA 242 & 243/JP/2017_ Meena Tambi Vs. ACIT equity and in compliance of the legal position, I find it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction that the Assessing Officer shall refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer to ascertain the fair market value on the date of transfer. The assessees shall be at liberty to submit necessary evidence in support of their claim with regard to valuation of the property at fair market value on the date of transfer.
6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31/08/2017.
Sd/-
¼Hkkxpan½ (BHAGCHAND) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 31st August, 2017 *Ranjan vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellants- (i) Smt. Meena Tambi, Jaipur &
(ii) Smt. Kavita Tambi, Jaipur.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 242 & 243/JP/2017) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar