Mr. Filipe Neri Piedade Correia., Margao V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Margao

CO 10/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1068 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MEHBOOB ALI KHAN LD
• Assessee Lawyers: D E ROBINSON
• Keywords: Fair market value; Valuation report

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA N O . 427 /PNJ/20 14 : (A.Y 2011 - 12 ) ITO, WARD - 2, OPP. DISTRICT COURT, MARGAO, GOA. ( APPELLANT) VS. MR. FILIPE NERI PIEDADE CORREIA # 329, MONS G REBELLO ROAD, MARGAO, GOA (RESPONDENT) PAN : AAYPC4090J CO N O . 10 /PNJ/20 15 : (A.Y 2011 - 12 ) MR. FILIPE NERI PIEDADE CORREIA # 329, MONS G REBELLO ROAD, MARGAO, GOA (CROSS OBJECTOR) PAN : AAYPC4090J VS. ITO, WARD - 2, OPP. DISTRICT COURT, MARGAO, GOA. ( RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : D.E. ROBINSON, ADV. REVENUE BY : MEHBOOB ALI KHAN, LD. DR DATE OF HEARING : 17 / 06 /201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 / 06 /201 5 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : 1. ITA NO. 427/PNJ/2014 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), PANAJI IN ITA NO. 97/MRG/14 - 15 DT. 22.9.2014 FOR THE A.Y 2011 - 12 AND CO NO. 10/PNJ/2015 IS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REVENUES APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 427/PNJ/2014. SHRI D.E. ROBINSON, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI MEHBOOB ALI KHAN, LD. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2 ITA NO. 427/PNJ/2014 & CO NO. 10/PNJ/2015 (A.Y : 2011 - 12) 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR THAT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED TH E ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN GRANTING RELIEF OF RS. 29,80,000/ - DISALLOWED BY THE AO, BEING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OVER AND ABOVE THE PERMISSIBLE LIMIT OF RS. 50 LACS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 54EC. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD AGRIC ULTURAL LAND AND HAD DISCLOSED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 88,84,568/ - . THE SAID LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS HAD BEEN INVESTED IN REC BONDS OF RS. 50 LACS ON 28.2.2011 AND AN ADDITIONAL RS.29,80,000/ - IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR ON 16.4.2011. THE ASS ESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S 54EC IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE INVESTMENTS. THE AO HAD DENIED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT UNDER SEC. 54EC DEDUCTION WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 50 LACS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54EC AS THE INVESTMENTS WERE IN TWO DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 3. IN REPLY, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF COROMANDEL INDUSTRIES LTD., 370 ITR 586 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT IF THE INVESTMENTS ARE FALLING IN TWO FINANCIAL YEARS, THE EXEMPTION U/S 54EC CANNOT BE RESTRICTED. HE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. IN RESPECT OF THE CROSS OBJECTION, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BY THE LD. AR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE VALUATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDEXATION AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS. 4/SQ. MTR. IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY AT VE RNA AND RS. 80/SQ. MTR. IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY AT MURIDA. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED THE VALUATION REPORT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE PROPERTY AT VERNA WAS VALUED AT RS. 50/SQ. MTR. AND THE PROPERTY AT MURIDA WAS VALUED AT RS. 250/SQ. MTR. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE AO HAD VALUED THE SAID PROPERTIES AT RS. 4/SQ. MTR. IN RESPECT OF THE 3 ITA NO. 427/PNJ/2014 & CO NO. 10/PNJ/2015 (A.Y : 2011 - 12) PROPERTY AT VERNA AND RS. 80/SQ. MTR. IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY AT MURIDA ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION BY THE SUB - REGISTRAR AND THE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH SUCH VALUATION WAS MADE WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR WAS INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSEES VALUATION REPORT NOR THE DEPARTMENTS VALUATION REPORT WAS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE TRIBUNAL WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE A COMPARISON AS TO WHICH VALUATION WAS CORRECT. AT THIS POINT, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES VALUATION REPORT WAS FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND IT HAS ALSO BEEN REFERRED TO BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT WAS INFORMED TO THE LD. AR THAT WITHOUT SEEING THE VALUATION REPORT IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO COMMENT ON THE SAME. 5. IN REPLY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS CLAIMED THE VALUATION AS ON 1.4.1981 FAR IN EXCESS OF THE ASSESSEE S OWN VALUATION REPORT AND CONSEQUENTLY, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DEEMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF FINDS HIS OWN VALUATION REPORT AS ERRONEOUS. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS NEITHER THE BASIS ON WHICH THE AO HAS MADE THE VALUATION NOR THE VA LUATION REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US, WE ARE UNABLE TO ASCERTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID TWO PROPERTIES AS ON 1.4.1981 IS LIABLE TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO WHO SHALL OBTAIN A PROPER VALUATION FROM THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) IN RESPECT OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES AND RE - DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNIT Y TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM AND WE DO SO. 4 ITA NO. 427/PNJ/2014 & CO NO. 10/PNJ/2015 (A.Y : 2011 - 12) 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/06/2015. S D / - (N.K. BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S D / - ( GEORGE MATHAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 1 8 /06/ 201 5 *SSL* COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) CONCERNED (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER , 5 ITA NO. 427/PNJ/2014 & CO NO. 10/PNJ/2015 (A.Y : 2011 - 12) DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ORDER ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 17/06/2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 17/06/2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 1 8 /06/2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 1 8 /06/2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 1 8 /06/2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17/06/2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 8 /06/2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER