TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions under Section 50C of the Act. No substantial question of law. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA MR KARAN SANGHANI ADVOCATE WITH MRS KALPANA K RAVAL(1046) FOR THE APPELLANT(S) NO. 1 ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA ) [1] By this Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (for short, the Act ), the appellant - Revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law arising from the judgement and order dated 7th March 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench, Surat (for short, the Tribunal ) in ITA No.03/SRT/2017 for the Assessment Year 2010-11: (i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding that there was no incriminating material without appreciating that the addition was based on the Valuation Report which in itself is an incriminating material? (ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,55,25,000/- made on account of unaccounted capital gain from sale of immovable property without appreciating that the addition was made on the basis of valuat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who deleted addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: 10.2 I have carefully me through the assessment order including the valuation report and the statement of the valuer reproduced and relied upon by the AO and the contentions of the appellant. There is no dispute in the basic facts of the case The undisputed facts are that the impugned land situated at Marwad, Devika Road, Nani Dainan, admeasuring about 3550 Square Meters was declared sold to Dhangra Hotels Beach Resorts Pvt. Lad, for total sale consideration of Rs.66,00,000/- on 17.02.2010. The total Stamp Duty of Rs. 3,96,000/- and sum of Rs.33,090/- was paid towards Registration Charges for the Purchase of the said Land by the Hotel. The company which has purchased the property has applied for loan from ICICI Bank Ltd, which fie its purposes has got the land valued through a valuer on their panel. The valuer M/s Space Architects had valued the market value of Old vide valuation report dated 21.05.2012 at Rs.7,65,02,500/-. There is neither an allegation nor an issue that the consideration declared by the appellant was above the value taken for the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out even a reference to any comparative instances cannot be justified. I have taken note of the fact that the Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Express Earth Movers Equipment vs. Department of Income Tax in Appeal No. ITA 506/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2005-06) vide its order dated 30.09.2015 has deleted and held an addition based on similar facts, in the case of purchaser of land based un valuation got done by it for bank loan, unjustified. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi, 'A' Branch in the case of ACIT vs. Reeta Aggarwal (2013) 36 CCH 0519. The addition is held unjustified on facts and also in the spirit of the scheme of the Act, and therefore, directed to be deleted. The relevant grounds of appeals are allowed. The additional ground (discussed in para 5.4 of this order) on technical jurisdiction, which has been allowed in law is not being considered on facts and is not being finally decided because it has become redundant; as the appellant has already got the desired relied on merits. However, it is observed that (i) whether the valuation report in itself can be said to be incriminating evidence and (i) whether documents apparently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration can be taken to be equal to the valuation adopted by the 'stamp valuation authority only and not the higher value estimated by the departmental valuer. Therefore, even by the spirit of the Act, when the valuation is of the same property, for the date of transfer, that too for the purposes of taxation of capital gains only, the legislature does not intend even then to take the deemed consideration higher than the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority. In such circumstances, taking a different value (much higher than value adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority) as consideration just on the basis of a third-party valuation, done on the Instances of a bank which is giving a loan, without even a reference to any comparative instances, cannot be justified. Based on this factual position, we note that ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. The conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) are, therefore, correct and admit no interference by us. We, approve and confirm the order of the CIT(A). [6] Learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani for the appellant Revenue submitted that the respondent assessee has not disputed the valuation report found during the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
