Meeta Vij vs DCIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee filed her return of income declaring total income at INR 20,39,370/- on 16.07.2013. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment by the Assessing Officer (AO) under CASS. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The AO made additions to the returned income of INR 24,000/- on account of deemed rental income and INR 2,23,62,752/- by disallowing deduction claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Authority assessed the income of the assessee under section 143(3) of the Act at INR 3,05,16,780/- as against the returned income at INR 20,39,370/-. The assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT-A), who dismissed the appeal. The assessee is now in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law by enhancing the Deemed Rental Income by Rs24,000/- and ignoring the facts such as age of Property and construction, market scenario and correction in market value of the properties across the country.
• 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law to enhance/add-back Rs60,90,660/- to the total income in the absence of the DVO Report and further the Ld. CIT-A failed to appreciate the DVO Report submitted wherein the Fair Market Value of the Land was assessed @ Rs1,87,29,952/- as per the DVO Report, instead of Rs2,40,90,660/- as per the Assessment Order.
• 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law to ignore a Regd. Valuer Report for Valuation/Cost of Improvement correct and resultant of same, disallow 75% of the Cost of Improvement without any valid reasoning.
• 4. The Ld. Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law to wide of the mark to duplicate enhancement of Income of Rs60,90,660/- as detailed herein: Addition of Rs60,90,660.00 on account of Sale consideration less than the stamp duty value, under the provisions of Section 50-C of the IT Act, 1961. Addition of Rs2,23,62,752.00 on account of Revised Computation of Capital Gain which is calculated considering the Stamp Duty Value i.e. Rs2,40,90,660/- and not the Sales consideration i.e. Rs1,80,00,000/-.
• 5. The Ld. Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and also to misread the facts of the case by considering Residential Land as Agricultural Land and to disallow the exemption U/s 54/54 B without considering the merits and other evidentiary facts related to the Sale and Purchase transaction resulting in L/T Capital Gain.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Murtuza Kothari vs. ITO, Ward-19(2)(2)

  Mumbai benchAY 2015-16Partly Allowed

• Raghvendra Singh

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2018-2019Allowed

• Tawfiqur Rahman

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2013-2014Allowed

• Aero Pack Products Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer

• M/s. Meerams Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Bangalore benchAY 2016-17Allowed

• Shri Subhash N Jain vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 25(1)(3)

  Mumbai bench