Calculation of Valuation of Property under the Income Tax Act

This case involves cross-appeals concerning the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee, Shri Banwari Lal Sharma, was initially deemed a representative assessee for Smt. Pamela Colleco, a non-resident, concerning her Jaipur property. The appeals question the validity of the assessment order and the confirmation of additions made by the Assessing Officer, particularly regarding the property's valuation.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘A’ JAIPUR

BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM

ITA Nos. 475/JP/2019
Assessment Year :2008-09 

Shri Banwari Lal Sharma
45B, Santosh Sagar
Colony, Bharampuri, Jaipur
PAN/GIR No.: AKEPS1038A
Appellant

Vs.

The Income Tax Officer,
Ward 1(5),
Jaipur
Respondent

ITA Nos. 558/JP/2019
Assessment Year :2008-09

The Income-tax Officer,
Ward-1(5), Jaipur
PAN/GIR No.: AKEPS1038A
Appellant

Vs.

Shri Banwari Lal Sharma
45B, Santosh Sagar
Colony, Bharampuri,
Jaipur
Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)
Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Jt.CIT)

Date of Hearing : 25/3/2021
Date of Pronouncement: 14/06/2021

ORDER

PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M.

 These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee and by the Revenue which are directed against the order of ld. CIT (A), Kota dated 02.01.2019 pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09.

2. In ITA No. 475/JP/2019, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the assessment (set-aside) u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by ld. AO in the individual capacity of assessee as against “representative assessee of Smt. Pamela Jean Colleco”, which is in violation of the direction of Hon’ble ITAT and therefore, the impugned assessment order deserves to be quashed.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition to the tune of Rs.29,51,572/- out of addition made by ld. AO. Appellant prays addition confirmed by ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted.”

3. In ITA No. 558/JP/2019, the Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing certain concessions in value of the property as against the valuation made by the DVO who is an xpert in the field and has taken into consideration all the aspects of the properties particularly the situation of the properties in question?”

4. The ld. AR submitted that in this case, an order was initially passed u/s 163 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 24.03.2011 wherein the assessee was held as Representative Assessee (within the meaning of section 160 of the I.T. Act, 1961) of Smt. Pamela Colleco, a non-resident. The assessee was appointed as the power of attorney holder by Smt. Pamela Colleco in respect of her immovable property situated at 55-A and 55-B, Opp. Central Jail, Agra Road, Jaipur in terms of specific power of attorney made and executed on 21.03.2005.

To know more in details find the attachment file