Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Shri Ashwin C. Shah,, Kalol vs The Ito, Ward-2,, Godhra on 1 February, 2018
आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ, अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD - "C" BENCH
BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
WTA.No.25 to 30/Ahd/2017
नधा रण वष /Asstt.Year : 2007-08 to 2012-13
Shri Ashwin C. Shah ITO, Ward-2
Kachhiyawad Vs Godhra.
Vejalpur, Kalol (PMS)
अपीलाथ / (Appellant) यथ / (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri S.H.Talati, AR
Revenue by : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.DR
ु वाई क तार ख/ Date
सन of Hearing : 22/01/2018
घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Pronouncement: 01/02/2018
आदे श/O RDER
PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present six appeals are directed at the instance of the assessee against separate orders of even dated i.e. 17.4.2017 passed by the ld.CWT(A)-4, Baroda, Though the assessee has taken five grounds of appeal, but the issue in dispute relates to determination of net-wealth for the purpose of Wealth Tax Act.
2. Facts on all vital points are common. Therefore, for the facility of reference, we take up the facts from the assessment year 2007-08. According to the AO, on verification of record it revealed to him that wealth of the assessee exceeds limits under the Wealth tax Act, and he has not filed his WTA No.25/Ahd/2017 and 6 others 2 return of wealth. Therefore, a notice under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act dated 26.3.2014 was issued and served upon the assessee. However, the assessee did not file return for the Asstt.Year 2007-08 and the ld.AO has issued a notice under section 16(4) of the Act to set the assessment machinery in motion. The assessee thereafter filed his wealth-tax return on 9.3.2015 declaring net wealth at Rs.36,11,547/- in the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has disclosed the following properties and their net wealth:
Survey No. Sq. Date of Amount Valuation
Metre purchase by assessee
1 604, P3 & P2 At. Vejalpur 5261 27/09/93 81500 173354
2 44/16 P31, Vavdi Bujarg, Godhra 719.2 25/03/98 54000 84671
3 44/16, Vavdi Bujarg, Godhra 712.4 13/11/98 50000 73932
4 Agr. Land 7 At. Narol, Ahmedabad 11062 18/11/03 2725000 3054590
5 Agr. Land 1/1 I At. Goli, Godhra 63916 18/08/08 22500 225000
3611547
3. From the assessment year 2009-10, there is an addition of one more property viz. 1/4th share in plot no.225/1, Vavdi, Bujarg. The area of this property has been shown at 7538 sq.meters. It was acquired on 18.7.2008 for a consideration of Rs.,1,32,518/- for the purpose of wealth-tax. Thus, from the assessment year 2009-10, net wealth shown by the assessee is of Rs.41,82,461/-. The ld.AO has determined taxable wealth of the assessee at Rs.46,62,407/- in Asstt.Year 2007-08 which has been determined at Rs.64,80,253/- in Asstt.Year 2009-10. Thus, an addition of Rs.22,97,792/- has been made in the Asstt.Year 2009-10. In this gradual manner, taxable wealth goes on increasing in the subsequent years. Dissatisfied with the determination of wealth-tax assessee carried the matter in appeal before the WTA No.25/Ahd/2017 and 6 others 3 ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has partly allowed appeal of the assessee. The discussion made by the ld.CIT(A) in the Asstt.Year 2007-08 reads as under:
"4.3. I have considered the submissions of the learned Authorized Representative and the order of the Assessing Officer. The appellant has taken a plea that the A.O has not adopted the valuation of land situated at different places. Since, the assets (land) is agricultural and hence outside the purview of wealth tax.
4.4. The A.O in his assessment order has determined the value by (i) Indexation method (ii) valuation by approved valuer (iii) Prevailing Jantri rate, whichever is higher.
4.5. The A.O has adopted the value for Property No.1 R.S.No.604 At Vejalpur, Tal. Kalol at Rs.1,73,613/- whereas the appellant adopted as per Indexation cost of Rs.1,73,354/-. Hence, there is difference of Rs.259/- was added to net wealth of the appellant. The A.O is directed to delete the addition made on this count.
4.6. R.S.No44/16 P.31 & R.S.No.44/16, Vavdi, Bujarg,Godhra, the AVO , Ahmedabad has determined the value of different land. The details of value adopted by A.O and AVO are as under:
Survey No. Sq.Mtr. Valuation Valuation Valuation Whichever As per AVO by 'A' as per as per is higher report dt.
Report of Index rate out of 27.10.15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 1 44/16 P 31 719.2 84,671 86,280 4,31,520 4,31,520 4,46,597 Vavdi Bujarg,Godhra 2 44/16 Vavdi 712.4 73,932 74,089 4,27,440 4,27,440 4,46,597 Bujarg,Godhra
4.7. As per the report of the A.O dated 16.01.2017, the A.V.O. Ahmedabad has determined the valuation of the above said land at Rs.4,46,597/-. The A.O is directed to adopt the valuation at Rs.4,46,597/- for both Survey No.44/16 P 31 and 44/16 respectively.
4.8. The A.O has accepted the valuation of property No.4 - R.S.7, Narol, Ahmedabad declared by the assessee at Rs.30,54,590/-. The A.O has reported vide letter dated 16.01.2017 that report of AVO-1, Ahmedabad is still awaited. The A.O is directed to adopt the valuation of Property of R.S.7, Narol, Ahmedabad on receipt of the report from the AVO, if the valuation is more than the value of the property declared and accepted by the A.O. 4.9. The A.O has adopted the value of land 1/1 At Goli,Godhra at Rs.5,75,244/-, whereas the appellant has shown it at Rs.2,25,000/- and, thus, there was a difference of Rs.3,50,244/-. The A.O has reported vide letter dated 16.01.2017 that report of AVO-1, Ahmedabad is still awaited. The A.O is directed to adopt the valuation of Property at 1/1 at Goli,Godhra on receipt of the report from the AVO, if the valuation is more than the jantri value of the property, then the same should be adopted.
WTA No.25/Ahd/2017 and 6 others 4
5. The Fourth ground of the appeal is as under:
"4. The Learned WTO has erred in charging interest under section 17B of the Wealth Tax Act. It is submitted that charging of interest is incorrect, invalid and not justified. It be held so now and same be deleted in toto."
5.1. During the course of Assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not discussed anything else about the above ground.
5.2. In appeal the Ld. Authorized Representative has made written submission as under:
"Being consequential in nature, the AO be directed to recalculate the interest u/s 17B of the IT Act"
5.3. The charging of interest is mandatory in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Anjum M H Ghaswala 252 (2001) ITR 1 (SC) hence, this ground of the appellant fails."
4. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the issue in dispute deserves to be set aside to the file of the AO because value of the certain assets have been determined by the AO without availability of DVO's report. The ld.CWT(A) has also observed that report of the DVO is still awaited. The AO has adopted value by three methods viz. (i) indexation method, (ii) valuation by approved valuer, and (iii) prevailing jantri rate whichever is higher.
5. On due consideration of the above facts, we are of the view that the ld.AO failed to adhere to the procedure contemplated in Wealth Tax Act for determining value of the asset for the purpose of taxability under the wealth- tax Act. The alleged jantri value is nothing but a corroborative piece of evidence notified by the stamp valuation authority for the purpose of charging stamp duty on registration of sale deed. In a way, it is a ready-made reckoner to determine rate in a particular area. But it is always subject to challenge even under the Income Tax Act which has been provided that value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty valuation could be deemed as full consideration on transfer of capital assets [Section 50C]. But sub-section 2 of section 50C WTA No.25/Ahd/2017 and 6 others 5 provides a remedy to the assessee in case he has aggrieved with adoption of such sale consideration on the basis of deeming provision. He can file a reference to the AO and the AO shall send the reference to the DVO for determining fair market value of the property on the date of transfer. Thus, it cannot be taken as gospel truth. The assessee has to be given an opportunity to contest this rate. Similarly, report of the DVO is to be supplied to the assessee his comments are to be taken. Only thereafter net wealth could be determined. In the present cases, report of the DVO is still awaited. While dealing with the property no.4, Narol, Ahmedabad the ld.CIT(A) has observed that the AO is directed to adopt value of the property on receipt of report from the DVO if the valuation is more than the value of the property declared and accepted by the AO. Now, how this type of direction can be made without confronting the assessee with report of the DVO ? Therefore, after considering the record, we are of the view that ends of justice will be met, if we set aside order of the ld.CWT(A) and restore all these issues to the file of AO. The ld.AO shall provide copies of DVO's report in case those reports are being relied upon by him for determination of net wealth. In case, the ld.AO does not want to rely upon these details, then whatever evidence he would consider, it should be supplied to the assessee for his comment, and only thereafter, valuation of the properties be made for the purpose of wealth- tax. We order accordingly.
6. In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Court on 1st February, 2018 at Ahmedabad.
Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 01/02/2018