Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Shri Kailash Agarwal, F-281, Road ... vs Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2), Jaipur, ... on 13 January, 2020
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES 'B' JAIPUR
Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 268/JP/2019
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2010-11
Sh. Kailash Agarwal cuke The ITO,
F-281, Road No. 13, VKI Area, Vs. Ward-4(2),
Jaipur. Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADVPA 5826 E
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj l@
s Assessee by : Shri C.L.Yadav (CA)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri K. C. Gupta (JCIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 08/01/2020
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement:13/01/2020
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated 20.12.2018 for the assessment year 2010-11 wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
"1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,50,313/- on account of short term capital gain.
2. The Ld. AO grossly erred in law and factors the provisions of sub- section 2 of section 50C of the Income Tax, 1961 to refer the matter to valuation officer and the ld. CIT(A) also grossly ignored the facts and law.
3. the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- as an unexplained cash deposit."2 ITA No. 268/JP/2019
Sh. Kailash Agarwal Vs. ITO
2. Regarding grounds no. 1 and 2, the ld AR took us through the findings of the Assessing Officer which reads as under:-
"6.1 Income from short term capital gains:- The assessee has sold plot no. 23, Girdhar Colony, Yogana, Mahapura alias Kukarkheda, Sikar Road, Jaipur for a sale consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/- during the F.Y. 2009-10 i.e. period relevant to the A.Y. 2010-11. The sub Registrar-V, Jaipur has adopted the final face value of this land at Rs. 10,30,213/- and charged stamp duty accordingly. The case attracts provisions of section 50C which were introduced by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1-4-2003. The relevant provisions of section 50C reads as under:-
50C. Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases.- (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the "stamp valuation authority') for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer.
Thus, section 50 C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides that where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of land or building or both is less than the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration and capital gains shall be computed accordingly. In the present case the Sub Registrar has adopted the final face value at Rs. 10,30,213/-. The assessee was show caused 3 ITA No. 268/JP/2019 Sh. Kailash Agarwal Vs. ITO as to why the sale value may not be adopted at Rs. 10,30,213/-. The reply furnished by the assessee is as under:-
(7) The assessee has purchased the house in 05.11.2007 in Rs.
738940/ the purchases value Rs. 661000/ stamp duty Rs. 57840/ & brokerage paid Rs. 20100/ to Gyan Chand Samlani total cost of house is Rs. 738940/ & sale consideration amount Rs. 800000/ short term capital gain Rs. 61060/ which is shown in lTR as per vaule of 50C the sale proceeds value Rs. 10302013/ which is shown wrong because that time market value was maximum Rs. 800000/ only because purchases time registry made with construction Rs. 661000/ & after 33 month the registry made Rs. 800000/ which was only plot the construction has broken therefore the market value was that year Rs.800000/-.
The reply filed by the assessee has been examined. It is noticed that no evidence has been furnished in support of his contention that the market value of the plot was Rs. 8,00,000/- only. The Sub Registrar has adopted the market value at Rs. 10,30,213/-. It has not been stated that the valuation adopted by the Sub Registrar has been appealed either by the assessee or the purchaser, which clearly indicates that the valued adopted by the Sub Registrar has been duly accepted by the assessee as well as the purchaser. Considering the same and the existing provisions of section 50C of the Income-tax, 1961 the sale value is thus adopted at Rs. 10,30,213/-.
The assessee has claimed the cost of acquisition of this property at Rs. 7,38,940/- which includes purchase value Rs. 6,61,000/-, stamp duty Rs. 57,840/-and brokerage paid Rs. 20,100/-. Evidence in support of deduction claimed on account of brokerage has not been filed and thus the same cannot be allowed. Thus, the cost of acquisition / purchase cost (also proposed in the final show cause 4 ITA No. 268/JP/2019 Sh. Kailash Agarwal Vs. ITO notice dated 03.11.2017) is adopted at Rs. 7,18,840/-. The short term capital gain arising on sale of this property works out to Rs. 3,11,373/- (10,30,213 -- 7,18,840). The short term capital gain arising on sale of plot no. 23, Girdhar Colony, Yojana, Mahapura alias Kukarkheda, Sikar Road, Jaipur is thus assessed at Rs. 3,11,373/-."
3. Further, the ld. AR took us through the findings of the ld. CIT(A) which reads as under:-
"2.3 I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. During the year, assessee sold a plot for Rs. 8,00,000/- which was valued by Sub-registrar at Rs. 10,30,213/-. After reducing the total cost at Rs. 7,38,940/-, the assessee declared short term capital gain. Assessing Officer made the addition on account of difference between sale and value taken by sub-registrar as per section 50C and disallowed brokerage expense of Rs. 20,100/-. The assessee reiterated his stance taken before the Assessing Officer during appellant proceedings.
2.3.1. Since section 50C is mandatory, therefore, Assessing Officer rightly adopted value at Rs. 10,30,213/- under section 50C which is upheld. No evidence was filed regarding claim of brokerage expense, therefore, this addition is also upheld. This ground of appeal is dismissed."
4. It was submitted by the ld AR that the assessee has objected to the valuation adopted by the stamp duty authority before the AO and therefore, the matter should have been referred by the AO to the DVO for determination of fair market value. Since the Assessing Officer has not referred the matter to the DVO, the matter may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for determination of fair market value.
5 ITA No. 268/JP/2019Sh. Kailash Agarwal Vs. ITO
5. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee has not made any specific request for reference of the matter to the DVO. Therefore, in absence thereof, the Assessing Officer was not required to refer the matter to the DVO. He accordingly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer.
6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has sold a plot of land for a consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/- whereas the registering authority has considered the sale value at Rs. 10,30,213/- for the purpose of stamp duty. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was issued a show cause notice and in response, the assessee objected to the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 10,30,213/- and requested to adopt value of Rs. 8,00,000/- as per the sale registry. Therefore, where the assessee has objected to the stamp duty violation, as per the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act, the matter should have been referred by the Assessing Officer to the DVO for determination of fair market value. In the instant case, as the matter has not been referred to the DVO, we deem it appropriate to set aside the matter to file of the Assessing Officer for referring to DVO to determine the fair market value of the land in question and decided as per law. In the result, the grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
7. In ground no. 3, the assessee has challenged the sustenance of addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit which was deposited by the assessee in his bank account on 27.01.2010 maintained with Punjab National Bank. During the course of hearing, the AR submitted that the cash flow statement was submitted by the assessee before the lower authorities and it was submitted, on perusal of the said cash flow statement, it is clear that the assessee was having sufficient balance as on the date of deposit of cash in the Punjab National Bank account and source thereof was earlier withdrawals made by the assessee from the bank itself.
6 ITA No. 268/JP/2019Sh. Kailash Agarwal Vs. ITO
8. Per contra, the ld. DR is heard who has submitted that since the assessee was carried on the construction activities, it is likely that the withdrawal so made by the assessee from the bank was utilized for construction activities and not necessary available for re-deposit in his bank account. He accordingly supported the order of the lower authorities.
9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the cash flow statement, we find that the assessee was having sufficient cash balance of Rs 471,470 as on the date of deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- in his bank account and regarding withdrawals for meeting construction expenditure, we find that there were withdrawals to the tune of Rs 480,000 prior to date of such deposit and subsequent withdrawals from the bank to the tune of Rs 640,000 which were available for meeting the construction expenditure. Therefore, the explanation so offered by the assessee that deposit so made in the bank account is out of earlier withdrawals from his bank appears to be bonafide which is hereby accepted. In the result, ground of appeal is allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of above directions.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/01/2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½
(Vijay Pal Rao) (Vikram Singh Yadav)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:- 13/01/2020
*Santosh.
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Sh. Kailash Agarwal, Jaipur.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward-4(2), Jaipur.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 7 ITA No. 268/JP/2019 Sh. Kailash Agarwal Vs. ITO
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur.
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 268/JP/2019} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar