9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in making addition of Rs. 7,97,015/- on account of unexplained investment. Assessee had duly submitted the valuation report of the registered valuer but Assessing Officer did not accepted the same nor referred the case to valuation Officer, which is bad in law. 3. That the appellant craves the right to add, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assesseeis deriving rental income, income from business and interest income during the year under consideration. The assessee filed his return of income on 07.02.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 2,18,770/- after claiming deduction under chapter VIA of Rs. 1.037/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS, and accordingly a formal notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 31.08.2015. Assessee had purchased a property jointly with Sh. Nazar Mohd during the year having DLC value of Rs. 43,94,029/- for purchase consideration of Rs. 28,00,000/-. Assessee's share was 50% in above property. Assessing officer added the half of difference amount of Rs. 7,97,015/- in total income of the assessee treating it as une ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JAIPUR HAD ERRED IN ASSUMING THE ROLE OF AO WITHOUT VALID TRANSFER ORDER U/S 127: As per sec. 127, (1) The principal director or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more assessing officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent . jurisdiction) to any other Assessing officer or Assessing officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. (2) .................... In the present case, notice u/s 143(2) for the A.Y. 14-15 was issued by ITO Ward 3(4), Jaipur and thereafter the case transferred to ITO, Ward 3(3), Jaipur. The case was transferred via transfer Memo dated 18.05.2016 [PB 1] without a transfer order u/s 127. It has been held in various case laws that transfer of assessment proceedings without order u/s 127 are null and void. Some of the case laws are as under: 1. Brijesh Sharma vs. DCIT [IT(IT)A. No. 06/JP/2022] [PB 2-23] 2. Vijay Vikram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rate of 13760 per Sq. Mtr for 209.03 Sq. Mtrs (As Per DLC Rate) 28,76,252/- Construction Cost (As evaluated by stamps deptt.) 98,715/- TOTAL (As evident from the val. report obtained from stamps & reg. deptt)29,74,967/- Assessee's Share (i.e. 50%) 14,87,484/- Purchase Consideration 14,00,000/- Deemed income to be added u/s 56 87,484/- However, since, the difference between fair market value of property and actual consideration is less than 10% of the actual consideration, therefore the same should be ignored and no addition should be made u/s 56 as held by Bangalore ITAT in Sandeep Patil vs. ITO [924/BANG/2019] and Jaipur ITAT in Sita Bai Khetan vs. ITO [826/JP/2013] Further, assessee had claimed before assessing officer that value adopted by stamp valuation authority exceeds the fair market value of the property, therefore assessing officer should have referred the matter to Department valuation officer instated of adopting the value taken by the stamp valuation authorities and failure to do so will result in deleting the addition as held in case of a. ITO vs. M/s Aditya Narain Verma (HUF) 4166/Del/2013 (PB 63-72) b. ITO vs. Estate of Maharaja Karn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e city and only wards were changed but the court did observe about the nature of transfer orders under section 127. Hence, ground No. 1 of the assessee appeal is dismissed. 9. In ground No. 2, taking into merits of the case, the ld. AR for the assessee has purchased a residential house for Rs. 28,00,000/- jointly with Mr. Nazar Modh which had DLC value of Rs. 43,94,029/-, where the assessee is holding 50% of the property value. The ld. AO has failed to consider the submission made by the assessee that the valuation report from the registered valuer is an evident where the calculation sheet obtained from registration department from where it can be found that how the calculation of DLC value of Rs. 43,94,029/- was arrived on the date of transaction. The ld. AO and the ld. CIT(A) has failed to note that the assessee has sold the above property on 05.02.2015 where the valuation of same half portion of the property was made by Registration Department at Rs. 17,17,516/- . The ld. AO failed to consider the submission made by the assessee where the assessee has submitted the valuation sheet of DLC value which was made by the Registrar Department considering it to be a residential proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 dated 07.06.2017 for the assessment year 2009-10, wherein the Coordinate Bench has held in para 4.1 which are reproduced as under:- "4.1 On the very perusal of the provisions laid down under section 50C of the Act reproduced hereinabove, we fully concur with the finding of the ld. CIT (Appeals) that when the assessee in the present case had claimed before Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, the Assessing Officer should have referred the valuation of the capital asset to a valuation officer instead of adopting the value taken by the state authority for the purpose of stamp duty. The very purpose of the Legislature behind the provisions laid down under sub section (2) to section 50C of the Act is that a valuation officer is an expert of the subject for such valuation and is certainly in a better position than the Assessing Officer to determine the valuation. Thus, non-compliance of the provisions laid down under sub section (2) by the Assessing Officer cannot be held valid and justified. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of All ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
