TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50C of the Act. Tribunal, facts and issues involved in the present appeal being identical, observations and findings of the Tribunal in the case of co-owners [ 2021 (11) TMI 1016 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case on hand as well, more so when, the ld.DR has not pointed out any material difference in facts and circumstances. Therefore, we dispose of both appeals of the assessee with similar directions. - ITA Nos. 594 And 595/Ahd/2019 - - - Dated:- 10-1-2022 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice President And Smt.Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Surendra Modiani, CA For the Revenue : Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT : The present two appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority for levy of stamp duty and addition was directed to be substantially reduced from ₹ 11,12,018/- to ₹ 21,581/-. It is therefore prayed by the ld.counsel for the assessee that since matters and issues are same, applying the principle of consistency, both appeals of present assessee may be decided accordingly. 3. On the other hand, the ld.DR has not disputed factum of similar issue raised in the case of another joint owner, nor pointed out any disparity of the present case with that of the joint-owner of the same property which is also subject matter in the present appeals also. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused material available on record. We have also gone through order of the ITAT (one of us, i.e. Vice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l school, Ellis bridge, Ahmedabad - 380006 Respected Sir, Sub: Appeal before ITAT in case of Shri Hardik Suryakant Shah for AY 2009-10 In the matter of the above referred assessee, we were in receipt of the appellate order u/s 143(3) dated 26.08.2013 on 17.09.2013 wherein the appellate order had confirmed the addition of ₹ 11,12,018/- u/s 50C. However your Honour we disagree with the said addition. This addition was made in respect of other co-owners of the concerned property. However we were in respect of the valuation report from the DVO in case of other co-owners, thereby the appellate order was being awaited. On account of this reason, there was a delay in the filing of the appeal. Secondly, our earlier CA is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken vigilant step in his own case. The assessee could file application before the Assessing Officer under Section 50C(2) of the Act. He could raise plea before the learned CIT(A), but after the decision of the learned CIT(A), he has accepted the result and did not chose to file the appeal for long six years. There is hardly any plausible explanation for this delay. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the explanation for condonation of delay. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed being time barred. 4. Now we take up ITA No. 592/Ahd/2019. As observed in the earlier appeal, it emerges out that the appeal of the assessee was decided on 26.08.2013. Thereafter, the assessee moved an application on 30.12.2016 under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence to the DVO for determining the true value of the property, because Section 50C authorizes the Assessing Officer to take a deeming consideration for sale of the property on the ground that stamp duty was paid on a higher amount. In one of the co-owner s case, the District Valuation Officer of the Department has determined the value at a very lower figure, i.e. ₹ 55,94,230/- as against value adopted under the deeming provision at ₹ 1,54,08,163/-. To our mind, for doing the complete justice to an assessee, the learned First Appellate Authority ought to have treated it as an apparent error. Each co-owner should have been treated at par. It is pertinent to observe that the quasi-judicial authorities are being respected not on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
