TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transactions from January to March 2008 stating prices less than ₹ 1100/- per sq. mtr. The Revenue fails to rebut correctness thereof. Therefore, we infer in these facts that neither the assessee understated his purchase price nor sale rate of the respective lands situated in the Vesu locality at Surat. The Revenue’s endeavor seeks reliance upon auction prices of SUDA’s developed plots. Apples are sought to be compared with oranges in other words. We do not agree to this argument as it is an admitted fact that neither the land purchased nor sold happens to be a developed property. The Revenue’s arguments accordingly fail. Once we have rejected its twin arguments on the basis of SUDA rate and appropriate adjustment in revised jantri prices in applying the same with retrospective effect, assessee’s other arguments in the nature of legal pleas qua application of Section 69B, Section 50C and Section 55A have been rendered infructuous. Decided against revenue - ITA. No. 1508, 1509, 1510/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 6-11-2015 - Shri S. S. Godara, Judicial Member And Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Petitioner : Shri S. N. Soparkar, A. R For the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04.2008 could not be applied with retrospective aspect. He stated that its purchase as well as sale prices were the most appropriate. There was no evidence to be their under statement. No fault was found with the relevant books. There was no unaccounted investment forthcoming. We find that all these pleadings failed to impress upon the Assessing Officer. He was of the view that the State Government had revised jantri prices decades back. He observed that the revised jantri prices w.e.f. 01.04.2008 hereinabove could be suitable adjusted for ascertaining correct value of assessee s properties subject matter of sale and purchase in question. He proceeded accordingly by giving 25% rebate in their revised jantri prices and computed purchased price of the land to be ₹ 1,06,15,500/- (Rs.4500/- @ 75% of the revised jantri prices of ₹ 6000/- multiplied by area of the land measuring 2359 mtrs.). The same was reduced to the declared purchase price of ₹ 11,16,000/- as shown in the accounts resulting in the balance sum of ₹ 94,99,500/- being added as unaccounted investment. 5. The case file reveals that the Assessing Officer adopted the very formula for computing an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he two dates taken). He has, therefore, after allowing deduction of 25% in the new jantri rate effective 01-04-2008, adopted the rate of ₹ 4,500/- per sq. mtr. as the rate per sq. mtr. for purchase of land by the appellant in Vesu on 12-03-2008 [correct date taken), as against ₹ 473 per sq. mtr. as per the sale deed. The same logic has been applied in the purchase of land made by the appellant on 10-09-2007 in the Dumas area, which has been purchased approximately seven months before the new jantri rates became effective from 01-04-2008, as per which, the sale rate fixed for jantri purposes in Dumas area was ₹ 700/- to ₹ 1,000/- per sq. mtr. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after giving reduction of 2.5% from the rate of ₹ 700/- per sq. mtr., adopted the rate of ₹ 525/- per sq. mtr. to determine the purchase cost of the land in Dumas area. The Assessing Officer for making the above additions, has also taken into consideration the auction price of the land in the Vesu area during the period 05-04-2005 to 20-12-2006, which is ranging from ₹ 500//- per sq. mtr. to ₹ 7711/- per sq. mtr. for the residential plots of land, ₹ 7,500/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from the office of the sub-registrar in respect of all 16 instances of purchase of open agricultural plot vide Annexure-4 to the written submission dated 04-03- 2011. Upon due consideration of the same, I find that the Assessing Officer has incorrectly taken the auction rates for purchase of plots for residential, commercial and school and play ground as indicators for determining the purchase price of the plots of land at Vesu and Dumas, in the case of the appellant. The plots of land purchased by the appellant in Vesu and Dumas are agricultural land can be applied. I, therefore, hold that instances of auction sale of plots cited by the Assessing Officer have no relevance to the agricultural, land purchased by the appellant, and cannot be considered as comparable cases. Accordingly, in the absence of any relevant corroborative evidence, the jantri rates taken as base rate to determine the possible market rate of the agricultural plots of land purchased by the appellant, are also not valid. The additions made u/s. 69B of the Act are, therefore, without any relevant or direct evidence to show amount of investments etc. made in the above two plots of land, sis not fully disclosed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is report alternately, the reference to the DVO itself is not valid. The above land was sold by the appellant as a joint owner on 10- 01-2008 for a total consideration of ₹ 25,75,000/- (wrongly mentioned in the order as ₹ 12,87,5007-), in which assessee's half share is ₹ 12,87,500/-. The appellant has during the course appellate proceedings vide submission dated 04-03-2011 staled that die Assessing Officer has wrongly taken the sale consideration of the entire land at ₹ 12,87,500/- instead of ₹ 25,75,000/- and the appellant's half share in that at ₹ 6,43,750/- instead of ₹ 12,87,500/-. This mistake is found apparent from record. The total sale consideration of the non agricultural land of 2340 sq. mtr. at Vesu sold during the year, in which the appellant has half share, is, therefore, taken at ₹ 25,87,500/- and the appellant's share at ₹ 6,43,750/-. Similarly, the rate of the above land comes to ₹ 1100/- per sq. mtr. and not ₹ 616/- per sq. mtr., as mentioned in para 5 of the order, and the date of sale of the above plot of land is also taken as 10-01-2008 and not 12-01-2002 as mentioned in the above para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mining the sale consideration of the property sold on 10-01-2008. 4.9 The appellant's submission on this ground of appeal can be summarized as under: (i) The jantri rate prevailing : n the dale of sale of the above land was ₹ 105/- Per sq. mtr., whereas the land has been sold by the, appellant @ 1100/- per sq. mtr. The Assessing Officer has taken the new jantri rate for developed land as at 01-04- 2008, as the base rate to determine the total sale consideration of the land, which issue is covered by the order dated 23-04-2.010 of the Ahmedabad Bench of the ITAT in the case of Kaushik S Reshamwala Ors. (Supra), wherein the Tribunal has held that if the sale transaction is above the jantri price prevailing at the time of transaction, the provisions of section 50C are applicable, arid the Assessing Officer is not empowered to alter-the same. (ii) The appellant has furnished 34 sale instances including 4 instances of sale made in the month of January to March 2008 in the Vesu area where, the sale rate per sq. mtr., is less than the sale rate of ₹ 1100/- per sq. mtr., that is as per the sale deed of the land sold by the appellant. The appellant has al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not disclosed in his books of a/c. 4.11 In the light of the facts discussed above as well as 34 instances of sale in. the Vesu area given by the appellant, I hold that the auction sale rates of 12 instances quoted by the Assessing Officer and annexed to the order cannot be taken as true and correct indicator for determining the sale rate of non agricultural land sold by the appellant. Further instances of auction sale rate relate to residential plots, school and play ground plots and commercial plots, whereas, the instances of sale furnished by the appellant are found more relevant for determining the sale consideration of land sold by the appellant, as the same relate to non agricultural land sold during the same period in the Vesu area. In so far as adopting the jantri rate of developed land in Vesu area as at 01-04-2008, vide Annexure-2 to the order Is concerned, the same, In the light of decision of the jurisdictional Ahmedabad Bench of the ITAT in the case of Kaushik Reshamwala (Supra) cannot be adopted as an indicator to determine the sale rate of non agricultural land sold by the appellant on 10-01-2008. In nutshell, the Assessing Officer has not brought any dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
