TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of Co-ordinate Benches as referred above and considering the fact that the difference between the declared value and the value determined by the DVO is only 5.77%. Thus, we direct the AO to delete the addition qua property mentioned at Sl.No.1 and 2. So far as the Property mentioned Sl.No.3 and 4 are concerned, we find that there is a difference of 14.77% and 14.58% between the value declared by assessee and the fair market value determined by DVO which is beyond the maximum tolerance band of 10% as per the proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act. Therefore, the benefit of said proviso cannot be extended to the assessee - we find that these case laws are not applicable on the facts of the present case as all those case laws relates to addition in different chapter of Income Tax Act and facts of all those cases are altogether different and the ratio of all those cases are not applicable on the facts of the present case - assessee is not entitled for the benefit of proviso to section 50C(1) qua property shown at S No 3 4 and accordingly, the addition with regard to property mentioned at Sl.No.3 and 4 are upheld. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed - ITA No.348/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DVO of Vadodara vide his report dated 20.12.2016, which was received by the AO on 26.12.2016, assessed the value of property purchase by assessee at Prathampura (Shilor), Taluka Savli as on 04.05.2016 at ₹ 17,79,531/-. However, the Valuation Report in respect of remaining Three (03) lands was not received by the AO. The AO recorded that the case was getting time barred on 31.12.2015. Therefore, he left no other option, except to decide the case on merit. The AO on the basis of report in respect of property at Prathampura, Tal Savli from DVO, Vadodara and in respect of remaining Three (03) properties on the basis of Jantri Rate recorded on purchase deed, made total addition of ₹ 1.64 crore to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed detailed written submissions before the ld. CIT(A), as recorded in para 5 of his order. In the written submission, the assessee stated that during the assessment, references were made to DVO for determination of fair market value of all the plots of lands. Before passing the assessment order, the report of valuation was recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sl.No.1 and 2 are similar which were sold in two parts, but Valuation Officer has taken different value of the same plot, therefore, the valuation of property shown at Sl.No.2 is to be taken at par with the property shown at Sl.No.1. The ld.CIT(A), further noticed that as per sale deed of property no.3, the assessee is having 50% share, this fact was brought to the notice of AO vide letter dated 23.01.2017, but the AO made addition on entire amount. Similarly, for property shown at Sl.No.4, the ld.CIT(A) noted that assessee was having only 1/4th share as per the sale deed, this fact was brought to the notice of the AO, but, despite the AO added the entire amount in the hand of assessee. Thus, on the aforesaid observation, the ld.CIT(A) directed to treat the valuation of property at Sl.No.1 and 2 at ₹ 43,51,000/- each. Similarly, in respect of property no.3 and 4 of the table, the assessee is having only share of 50%, 25% respectively and directed the AO to re-calculate additions as per Valuation Officer, thereby granted partial relief. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submission of ld. Authorised Represe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessee accordingly submits that by taking a broad view, the assessee may be allowed relief. The ld AR for the assessee furnished chart showing percentage of difference in the value shown by the assessee and the value accepted by ld CIT(A). 10. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. Sr. DR submits that whatever relief was claimed before the ld. CIT(A) was granted to the assessee. The assessee has now raised an additional plea about the tolerance range of 10% or 15% with regard to properties shown at Sl.No.1, 2 3, 4 respectively. The case laws relied by the assessee with regards to the property shown at S. No. 3 4 are based on different set of fact and are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue prays for dismissal of appeal. 11. We have considered the submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that there is no mush dispute on the facts of the case. During the hearing tje ld AR for the assessee furnished a chart showing the details of difference in % of value declared by the assessee and value accepted by the ld CIT(A), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
