This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara dated 17.01.2017 for the assessment year 2008-09.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SURAT BENCH, SURAT
BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, Hon'ble JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI ARJUN LAL SAINI, Hon'ble ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Assessment Year: 2008-09
Jhonson Electric Company
C/o. C.K.Pithawala Bhimpore,
Post: Dumas Dist: Surat.
[PAN: AAACJ 4908 P
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward-1(1)(3), Vadodara –
Assessee by Sh. Saurabh Soparkar with
Sh. Mayur K. Swadia ARs.
Revenue by Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. DR
Date of hearing: 23.09.2020
Pronouncement on: 22.10.2020
O R D E R
PER PAWAN SINGH, JM:
1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara dated 17.01.2017 for the assessment year 2008-09.
2. Grounds raised by the Assessee read as under:
“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in facts and in law in Treating Long Term Capital Gain as Short Term Capital Gain.
2. Your appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” Johnson Electric Co. Ltd., Vs. ITO
3. Brief facts of the case as gathered from the order of Lower Authorities are that the original assessment under section (u/s) 143(3) read with section (r.w.s.) 147 of Income –tax Act, was completed in the case of assessee on 03.11.2010. The assessee in hits return of income had showed income at Rs.19,34,420/-. The ld. Assessing Officer (AO) while passing the assessment order made addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on account of sale consideration of Rs.2 Crore. The addition of LTCG was made on the basis of consideration shown in the conveyance deed dated 08.05.2017. Subsequently, the case was reopened by the ld.AO on the basis of information received by the AO that conveyance deed of the property was cleared on 25.07.2010 on charging additional stamp duty by Stamp Valuation Authority. The Stamp Valuation Authority valued the property at Rs.4,67,51,985/-. In the Return of Income, the assessee has shown/offered the sale consideration of Rs.2 crores only. Thus, in view of the aforesaid fact the ld.AO again reopened the case of the assessee. The notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2014. The AO after serving statutory notice u/s 142(1) and 143(2) proceeded for reassessment. The AO also issued show cause notice on 17.02.2015 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why stamp value of Rs.4.6 Crores be not treated as sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gain and further addition of Rs.2.6 Crore should not be made as per the provision of section 50C. The assessee Johnson Electric Co. Ltd., Vs. ITO filed its reply and contended that the stamp duty value as adopted by stamp valuation authority is far excess of the fair market value on the date of transfer of the said property. The assessee also contended that he had appointed an independent registered valuer, who valued the fair market value of the said property. On the contention of the assessee vide application dated 10.03.2014, the AO referred the case to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) to determine the fair market value of the asset/ property. The assessee further vide his application dated 30.03.2015 contended that section 50C is not applicable on the sale of the asset. The valuation report of DVO was not received by the AO till 31.03.2015. The AO recorded that the case was going to be time barred on 31.03.2015, accordingly the AO passed the assessment order under section 143(3) rws 147 on 31.03.2015. The AO treated /adopted the value of the property at Rs. 4.6 Crore, as adopted by stamp valuation authority and after granting benefit of indexation determined long term capital gain of Rs.2.86 crores.
To know more in details find the attachment file