R.Gowrishankar, CHENNAI V. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), CHENNAI

CO 24/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7283 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NETHRAPAL IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: J SREE VIDYA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . , , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./W.T.A. NOS.84, 85 & 86/CHNY/2017 & C.O. NOS. 24, 25 & 26/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) CHENNAI 600 034 VS. SHRI. R. GOWRISHANKAR, 4/241, MGR SALAI, PALAVAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 041. [PAN AADPG 0323M] ( / APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI. NETHRAPAL, IRS, JCIT. ASSESSEE BY : MS. J. SREE VIDYA, ADVOCATE ! ' # $% /DATE OF HEARING : 25-09-2018 &' # $% /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01-10-2018 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE ARE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE REV ENUE AND ASSESSEE RESPECTIVELY DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DA TED 30.08.2017 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, CHENNAI . W TA NOS.84 TO 86/17 & CO 24 TO 26/18 :- 2 -: 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RUNNING THROUGH THESE APPEALS AND CR OSS OBJECTIONS IS ON VALUATION OF A PLOT OF LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RANJITH NAGAR, CHINNA NEELANGARAI. 3. AMONG VARIOUS ASSETS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS W EALTH TAX RETURNS, THERE WAS A PLOT OF 1.5 ACRES IN RANJI TH NAGAR, CHINNA NEELANGARAI, FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAD RETURNED A VALU E OF C30,15,000/-. ASSESSEE HAD ARGUED BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT THE SAID PLOT FELL WITHIN AN AREA COMING UNDER CATEGORY II OF COASTAL ZONE REGULATIONS AND HENCE THERE COULD NOT BE ANY MEANINGFUL CONSTRU CTION OR DEVELOPMENT THEREIN. HOWEVER, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REJECTED THIS CONTENTION AND TAKEN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT C 80,75,000/- ON THE RESPECTIVE VALUATION DATES FOR CALCULATING THE NET WEALTH. FOR ARRIVING AT THIS FIGURE, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, RELIED ON WH AT HAS BEEN TERMED AS GUIDELINE VALUE AT THE RATE OF C2,500/- PER SQFT. WHEN THE MATTER REACHED LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT THE LAND BEING LO CATED IN AN AREA COMING WITHIN COASTAL REGULATORY ZONE, IT COULD NOT BE VALUED APPLYING GUIDELINE RATES. HE REDUCED THE VALUE BY 50%, AND G AVE PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. W TA NOS.84 TO 86/17 & CO 24 TO 26/18 :- 3 -: 4. NOW BEFORE US, REVENUE IN ITS APPEALS SAYS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FELL FOUL IN I GNORING SECTION 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1956. STRONGLY ARGUING AGAINST THE RELIEF GIVEN BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE NO POWER S VESTED ON THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ENABLING H IM TO REDUCE THE VALUE WHICH WAS CALCULATED BASED ON GUIDELINE RATES . 5. PER CONTRA, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT VALUE OF THE AREA IN RANJITH NAGAR, CHINNA NEELANGA RAI AS ON 31.03.2009 WAS ONLY C1000/- PER SQ.FT. LD. AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCED A PRINT OUT OF THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT WHICH INDICATED THE GU IDELINE AT RANJITH NAGAR, CHINNA NEELANGARAI AT C1,000/- PER SQ.FT FOR THE PERIOD 01.08.2007 TO 31.03.2012. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPUT ED THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADOPTED THE RATE OF C2,500/- PER SQ.FT FOR ARRIVING AT THE VALUE OF THE PLOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RANJITH NAGAR, CHINNA W TA NOS.84 TO 86/17 & CO 24 TO 26/18 :- 4 -: NEELANGARAI. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) ON THE OTHER HAND HAD REDUCED IT BY 50%, EFFECTIVELY BRINGING DOWN THE VALUE OF THE LAND TO C40,37,500/- FROM C80,75,000/- CONSID ERED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE GUIDELINE VALUE AT RANJITH NAGAR WAS ONLY C1000/- PER SQ.FT AS ON 31.03.2009. CONSIDERING ALL THESE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO REVISIT T HE VALUATION OF IMPUGNED LAND PIECE FOR ALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSME NT YEARS AND VERIFY WHETHER IT NEEDED CORRECTION. NO DOUBT, LD . ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO GO BY THE GUIDELINE VALUE FOR VALUING THE LAND, BUT SUCH GUIDELINE VALUE ADOPTED HAS TO BE CORRECT. WE THERE FORE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE ISSU E BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. COMING TO THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHE WAS NOT PRESSING THEM. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE WHEREAS CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE W TA NOS.84 TO 86/17 & CO 24 TO 26/18 :- 5 -: DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ! ' ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) # $% / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) ' / CHENNAI * / DATED: 1 ST OCTOBER, 2018. KV + # ,$- . / . $ / COPY TO: 1 . 0 / APPELLANT 3. ! 1$ ( ) / CIT(A) 5. .45 ,$6 / DR 2. ,70 / RESPONDENT 4. ! 1$ / CIT 6. 58 9' / GF