" ITA No. 606/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2018-2019) \n Amita Singh \n1 \n \n IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, \nKOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA \n [Hybrid Court Hearing] \n \nBefore Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) \n \n I.T.A. No. 606/PAT/2024 \n Assessment Year: 2018-2019 \n \nAmita Singh,………………………….……..……Appellant \nProp. M/s. Singh Auto Centre, \nVillage- Helwanta, Post-Kudra, \nKaimur-881108, Bihar \n[PAN:BHZPS1664R] \n \n -Vs.- \nAssessment Centre, …………………………...Respondent \nDelhi, \nNational Faceless Appeal Centre, \nNew Delhi \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nAppearances by: \nShri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the \nassessee \n \nShri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, appeared on behalf of \nthe Revenue \n \nDate of concluding the hearing: January 02, 2025 \nDate of pronouncing the order: March 21, 2025 \n \nO R D E R \n \nThe present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee \nagainst the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), \nNational Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 7th August, \n2024 passed for Assessment Year 2018-19. \n \n \n\n ITA No. 606/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2018-2019) \n Amita Singh \n2 \n \n2. \nBrief facts of the case are that the appellant-assessee is an \nindividual, who filed her return of income for assessment year \n2018-19 on 29.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.4,84,590/-. \nThe case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny for the reason \nthat the assessee invested in immovable property. Accordingly \nnotices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were sent to the assessee. \nIn response to the said notices, the assessee filed her reply on \n12.06.2020 and 11.09.2020. The assessee also submitted the \ndetails of Sale Deed, Bank Statement etc. After considering the \ndetails filed by the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer has added \nan amount of Rs.4,06,816/- under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The \nreason for the addition is that the difference between the actual \npurchase price as per sale deed and the valuation report is more \nthan 5%. Aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the \nassessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). \n \n3. \nAfter considering the written submission filed by the \nassessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the \nassessee. \n \n4. \nOn being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before \nthe Tribunal and raised eleven grounds but the main grievance of \nthe assessee is that “the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in affirming the \nadding sum of Rs.4,06,816/- by treating the said amount as income \nfrom other sources, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified and \ninvoking section 56(2)(x) of the Act is not applicable in the case of \nthe appellant”. \n \n\n ITA No. 606/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2018-2019) \n Amita Singh \n3 \n \n5. \nI have heard both the sides. The assessee also filed the \nwritten submission. It was the submission of the assessee that the \nassessee and her husband entered into an agreement with the \nbuilders dated 5th September, 2015 for purchase of flat bearing no. \n402, 4th Floor, Keshav Apartment, Varanasi for a consideration of \nRs.39,94,884/-, which includes Rs.2,50,000/- for one car parking \nand Rs.1,50,000/- for transformer and generator. He further \nsubmitted that at the time of agreement, cash of Rs.11,000/- was \npaid on 08.12.2014. Thereafter as per the schedule of the payment \nmentioned in the agreement, the assessee made the cheque \npayments on five occasions for an amount of Rs.38,33,884/- plus \ncash of Rs.11,000/-. The case of the appellant as well as her \nhusband was selected for scrutiny. In the case of appellant, the \nmatter was referred to the Valuation Cell and the difference of \nRs.4,06,816/- between the actual purchase price consideration of \nRs.38,44,884/- and the fair market value of the property fixed at \nRs.42,51,700/-, which was subject to the addition and the same \nwas confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that \nthe Valuation Cell relied on the DM Circle rate for determining the \nfair market value by adopting rate of construction at Rs.24,000/- \nper sq. mtr., whereas the cost of construction was required to be \ndetermined by the Valuation Cell being an expert and thus the \nobservation of the ld. CIT(Appeals) that fair market value is based \non estimation of actual ongoing rate of similar property in the same \nlocality by the DVO runs counter to the method adopted by the \nDVO. He also relied on the decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench \nreported in 82 ITD 1 at page 9, wherein it has been held that \n“where two or more methods of valuation are available for \n\n ITA No. 606/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2018-2019) \n Amita Singh \n4 \n \ndetermining the cost of construction and the statute does not provide \nfor any particular method to be adopted, therefore, the opinion of the \nmethod of the valuation should be given to the assessee, as \notherwise it would cost grave prejudice to the assessee”. Therefore, \nthe addition of Rs.4,06,816/- based on fair market value as \nagainst the cost of construction is unsustainable in law for the \nreason that DM Circle rate cannot be equated with the cost of \nconstruction. Alternatively, he submitted that the limit of 5% has \nbeen enhanced to 10% by Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. \nThe provision is a procedural provision and it will accordingly \napply retrospectively and thus the date of its applicability w.e.f. \n01.04.2021 corresponding to assessment year 2021-22 would \ndirectly fetch of the principles of purposive construction to be given \nto a procedural provision as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in \nthe case of CIT -vs.- Vatika Township reported in (2014) 367 ITR \n466 (SC). Therefore, he pleaded to set aside the orders passed by \nthe lower authorities. \n \n6. \nOn the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative \nsubmitted that the cost of construction was Rs.38,44,884/- but \nthe registration value of the property as per the Registering \nAuthorities was Rs.60,15,959/-. However, the ld. A.R. relied on the \nvaluation determined by the Valuation Officer, who after \nexamining all the merits and demerits, valued the property at \nRs.42,51,700/-. \nThe \ndifference \nis \nonly \nRs.4,06,884/- \n(Rs.42,51,700/- minus Rs.38,44,884/-). Therefore, the DVO has \nvery liberally valued the property at Rs.42,51,700/-, though the \nstamp duty valuation of property is Rs.60,15,959/-. Therefore, the \n\n ITA No. 606/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2018-2019) \n Amita Singh \n5 \n \nld. D.R. pleaded that the orders passed by the revenue authorities \nare to be upheld. \n \n7. \nI have perused the material available on record. It is an \nundisputed fact that the Registering Authorities valued the \nproperty at Rs.60,15,959/- and the DVO valued the property at \nRs.42,06,884/- but the assessee purchased the property at \nRs.38,44,884/- (as per the consideration mentioned in the Sale \nDeed). The only contention of the assessee is that the DVO has not \nproperly valued the property. On this aspect, the contention of the \nld. D.R. is that the original registration value of the property as per \nthe valuation of the sub-register is Rs.60,15,959/- and the \ndifference between the original sale consideration and the \nvaluation determined by the DVO is only Rs.4,06,884/-. \nTherefore, there is no reason to believe that the DVO has not \nvalued the property correctly. After considering the submissions of \nboth the parties, I am of the view that when the registration value \nof the property is Rs.60,15,959/-, the burden lies on the assessee \nto establish that the value of the property mentioned in the Sale \nDeed is true and correct. In this case, the assessee has not given \neven any valid evidence to believe that the value of the property is \nonly Rs.38,44,884/-. However, the matter was referred to the DVO \nand DVO has valued at Rs.42,51,700/-. Admittedly the \nregistration value is Rs.60,15,759/-. Therefore, after considering \nthe above facts and circumstances, I have no hesitation to come to \nthe conclusion that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by \nthe ld. Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(Appeals) and also, I \ndo not find any infirmity in the valuation made by the DVO. \n\n ITA No. 606/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2018-2019) \n Amita Singh \n6 \n \nTherefore, there is no valid reason in the arguments of the ld. \nCounsel for the assessee saying that DVO has not properly valued \nthe property. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are liable \nto be dismissed. \n \n8. \nIn the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. \n Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/03/2025. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Sd/- \n (Duvvuru RL Reddy) \n Vice-President (KZ) \n \nKolkata, the 21st day of March, 2025 \n \nCopies to :(1) Amita Singh, \nProp. M/s. Singh Auto Centre, \nVillage- Helwanta, Post-Kudra, \nKaimur-881108, Bihar \n \n(2) Assessment Centre, \nDelhi, \nNational Faceless Appeal Centre, \nNew Delhi \n \n \n \n \n \n \n(3) CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi \n(4) CIT - ; \n(5) The Departmental Representative; \n \n \n(6) \nGuard File \n \n \n \nTRUE COPY \n \nBy order \n \n \n Assistant Registrar, \n \n \n \n \n Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, \n Kolkata Benches, Kolkata \nLaha/Sr. P.S. \n"