AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 935
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....This appeal pertains to the assessee/individual Shri Haresh Jagmohandas Mehta. He purchased agricultural land measuring 4500 sq.mtrs. comprised in TP 2, RS No. 106/3, Final Plot No.160 at Vesu, Surat on 12.03.2008 @ Rs. 473/- per sq. mtr. The total cost of this chunk came to be Rs. 11,16,000/-. Its jantri price was Rs. 105/- per sq.mtr. We come to the latter ground and find that the very assessee sold his half share of land at TP No.6, RS No.247/1/2 in the same locality Vesu, Surat on 10.01.2008 measuring 2340 sq. mtrs. for sale price of Rs. 20.75 lacs @ Rs. 1100/- per sq. mtr. Jantri price of this parcel of land was Rs. 105/- per sq. mtr. 4. The Assessing Officer took up scrutiny. He was of the view that assessee had understated his purchase as well as sale price hereinabove since this Vesu locality adjoined to premier educational, residential and commercial projects as well as the City Airport. He appears to have quoted the Surat Urban Development Authority auction prices ranging between Rs. 5000/- per sq. mtr. To Rs. 13,200/- per sq.mtr. in financial year 2005-06. We further notice that ld. Assessing Officer took cognizance of the fact that the State Government had revised jant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on sale of land at Vesu. Ground of appeal no. 7 is general in nature, as well as argument in support of grounds of appeal no. 1 to 6, hence, shall not be dealt separately; but considered as pail; of the above grounds of appeal. 4.3 The issues raised in the grounds of appeal no. 1,2,5 & 6 are common hence, all the four grounds of appeal are taken together for discussion and disposal, The appellant has primarily raised three issues in the above grounds of appeal, viz. - (i) Whether new jantri rates made effective from 01-04-2008 can be applied retrospectively by the assessing officer to the purchase of land effected on 11-07-2007, [there is mistake in the order, as correct date of purchase is 12-03- 2008 and not 11-07-2007] and 10-09-2007 respectively. (ii) Whether, in addition to the new jantri rates, Assessing Officer has brought any other corroborative evidence on record to justify alleged unaccounted investment. (iii) Whether section 69B of the Act, can be invoked in the case of the appellant for making above additions of Rs. 94,99,500/- and Rs. 36,60,600/-. 4.4 All the above issues are independent of each other. In respect of the first issue, the Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttention is as to whether the above instances of sale taken by the Assessing Officer can be taken as comparable Instances for determining the purchase cost of the land: bought: by the appellant in Vesu and Dumas, and whether on the basis of the said instances, additions made by the Assessing Officer is justified. The appellant has vide reply dated 04-03-2011, reproduced above given 16 instances of sale of open agricultural plots in Vesu area including R.S. No. 106/1 in TP no.2, where agricultural land purchased by the appellant is located. The purchase rate per sq. mtr. In the instances given by the appellant ranges from Rs. 46/- to Rs. 202/- per sq. mtr. And the date of purchase of these plots of land are from December 2004 to March 2008. The agricultural land in the Vesu area was purchased by the appellant at the rate of Rs. 473/- per sq. mtr. In the same area, a plot of land of the size of 2400 sq. mtr. Was purchased on 22-03-2008 @ Rs. 130/- per sq. mtr. Further, in the above 16 instances of purchase of plots of land in the Vesu area in the Financial Years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, furnished by the appellant, the maximum selling rate per sq. mtr., is Rs. 202/- per sq. mtr.,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Vs. CIT, wherein the hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the finding of the Tribunal that the assessing authority could net have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer without the books of accounts being rejected. The appellant's submission, therefore, is that reference to valuation officer has been made without rejecting the books of accounts arid the same is, therefore, invalid. The above submission of the appellant/ at this stage has no relevance, as there is no discussion in the assessment order that the Assessing Officer has referred to the DVO the above two properties for valuation., The Assessing Officer has also not relied upon any report of the DVO for making the above two additions u/s. 69B of the Act. I, therefore, do not consider it necessary to adjudicate on this submission. 4.7 Grounds of appeal no. 3 &4 relate to addition of Rs. 98,86, 250/- by taking the value of non agricultural land of 2340 sq. mtr. (wrongly mentioned by the Assessing Officer as 2090 sq. mtr.) in which the appellant has 50% share, that is 1170 sq, mtr. The sale price of the above land as documented is Rs. 1100/- per sq. mtr. The appellant has also objected to the above....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le rate at Rs. 9000/- per sq. mtr. i.e. after giving reduction of 25% from the rate of Rs. 12000/- per sq. mtr. and computed the appellant's share in the sale proceeds of the above land at Rs. 1,05,30,000/- (1170 X 9000), and, after subtracting the value shown by the appellant in his books of accounts at Rs. 6,43,750/-, he determined the unaccounted sale proceeds at Rs. 98,86,250/-. I find that there is an apparent mistake in the computation of above amount, as the Assessing Officer has wrongly subtracted 6,43,750/-, instead of Rs. 12,87,500/-. The addition made on the above account is, therefore, excess by Rs. 6,43,750/-, i.e. instead of making addition of Rs. 85,98,750/-, the Assessing Officer has made addition, of Rs. 98,86,250/-. 4.8 The issue involved in the above addition are, therefore, as under: (i) Whether the instances of auction sale of residential plot, commercial plots, school and play ground by SUDA in the F.Ys. 2005-06 and 2006-07, can be taken as comparable instances for determining the sale consideration of nonagricultural land sold by the appellant during the year. (ii) Whether the jantri rate of Rs. 12000/- per sq. mtr. for developed land in Vesu w.e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rice. If the rates finalized by the valuation authorities subsequent to the completion of the assessment proceedings are found to be lower than the price adopted by I.T. department, then the price indicated by valuation authorities subsequent to the completion of the assessment proceedings are found to be lower than the price adopted by IT department, then the price indicated by valuation authorities may be substituted for calculation of undisclosed capital gain and unaccounted investment," It is not clear from the above discussion made by the Assessing Officer, as to whether a reference to the DVO u/s. 55A of the Act, has been made during the course of assessment proceedings or therefore, as at one point, he has recorded that a 'reference is being made' whereas at the other point he has recorded 'report from Govt. valuer is pending'. In any case, the Assessing Officer has himself recorded the reasons for taking jantri rate as base rate for determining the sale value of land, as under, "Recourse to jantri prices and market rate and auction rate of SUDA were only taken to indicate that whet ever the sale / investment on land made by the assessee at Vesu area, S....