9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sale Deed Actual cost on which the property has been purchased 1 3402, Ground Floor Bazar Sita Ram Delhi - 110006 7,60,000/- 4,50,000/- 2 Part of Property no. 3402 to 3413, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi-110006 66,90,000/- 15,50,000/- 4. Since there is huge difference in the purchase price and circle rate, the AO asked the assessee to explain with evidence as to how the properties were purchased at such a lower value as against the higher circle rate. The assessee vide letter dated 14.03.2014 filed the following reply to substantiate the difference in the value:- Justification of value on which the properties have been purchased:- a. The property situated at ground floor, part of property no-3402 to 3413, measuring 178 sq mtrs situated in Gali Murghan, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi was purchased by the assessee for Rs. 15,50,000/- only while the circle rate was Rs. 66.90.000/-. The reasons are as under:- i. The property is situated in slum area. ii. The construction of the building is very old. iii. The property was occupied by the tenants namely M/s Prem Sukh Dass Jawahar Lai and Sh. Mohan Saroop since ages. There was a great element of risk involved in purchasing a pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on report. I agree with the contention of the Ld AR that during the assessment proceedings the appellant was not given the reasonable time to study and submit his objections to the valuation report. It is also a fact that the DVO in his report has mentioned categorically that in case the instances of nearby sale were brought to his notice he would consider them. It is in this background the additional evidence in the form of two sale deeds submitted by the appellant, has to be viewed. I find enough merit in the contention of the Ld AR that these two additional evidences on merit, needs to be considered. I find these additional evidence as quite relevant for deciding the appeal, The appellant has stated that the appellant's books of accounts were examined and accepted by the Assessing Officer and unless the books of accounts are rejected, the reference to valuation officer cannot be made. I am afraid that the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. The appellant is a proprietor and has submitted his return in the capacity of an individual. Since there was a very substantial difference in the valuation as per circle rate and the valuation as computed by the regd. Valuer, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or at the time of final hearing. 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the course of hearing before CIT(A) the assessee had filed additional evidence in the form of sale deeds of properties in the similar vicinity at about the same time which were sold at a price below the circle rates. The Ld. CIT(A) had forwarded the application filed before him under Rule 46 A and called for a remand report from the AO. He submitted that the assessee filed a rejoinder to the said remand report. He submitted that after considering the remand report and submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee the CIT(A) has allowed only a rebate of 15% although he had stated that the AO himself has not disputed to the fact that such properties are tenanted properties. 10. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the provisions of section 50C are not applicable in the present case as the assessee is the buyer of the property and not seller of the property. He submitted that provision of section 50C is applicable only in the hands of the seller of the land or building or both and not in the hands of the buyer of the property. Similarly the provisions of section 56 (2) (vii) (b) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the price mentioned in the sale deed and there is nothing on record to suggest that assessee has paid any extra money over and above what is stated in the sale deed. It is also his submission that neither the provisions of section 50C are applicable to the assessee nor the provisions of the section 56 (2) (vii) (b) are applicable to the assessee. It is also his submission that addition could not have been made in the instant case u/s. 69 of the IT Act since the AO has conducted independent enquiry by recording the statement of the seller of both the properties i.e. Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta. 13. We find sufficient force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find the assessee before the AO had categorically mentioned that both the properties were situated in slum area and were very old and tenanted properties. Further the assessee had filed sale deeds of properties in the similar vicinity at about the same time which were also sold at a price below the circle rate. In the present case since the assessee is a buyer of the property and not the seller of the property, therefore, the provisions of section 50C are not applicable. Similarly the assessment year involv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
