Dr.A.Thirumagal, Ph.D, Tirunelveli V. ACIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli

ITA 1221/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4098 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAILENDRA MAMIDIPCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1221/CHNY/2018 & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SMT. DR.A. THIRUMAGAL, PH.D, OLD NO.84, NEW NO.488, MAIN ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, TIRUNELVELI 627 008. PAN : ADEPT 0523 C V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, TIRUNELVELI. ()*/ APPELLANT) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT) )* - . / APPELLANT BY : SH. N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE +,)* - . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAILENDRA MAMIDI, PCIT / - 0' / DATE OF HEARING : 27.09.2018 12' - 0' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.10.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADUAI -2, MADURAI, DATED 08.03.2017 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2 I.T.A. NO.1221/CHNY/18 2. SH. N. DEVANATHAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') CONSIDERING THE CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT OF 2,41,45,150/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE SUB-REGISTRAR REFER RED THE MATTER TO THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER FOR DETERMINATION OF MARKE T VALUE. THE SUB- REGISTRAR DETERMINED THE VALUE AT 1320/- PER SQ.FT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX F OUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY WITH REG ARD TO SALE CONSIDERATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C O F THE ACT, THEREFORE, HE FOUND THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE LAND IN QUESTION IS AGRICULTURAL LAND, THEREFORE, T HE PROFIT ON SALE OF SUCH LAND IS EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION. REFERRING TO COPY OF ADANGAL EXTRACT, WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 59 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, TH E LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CULTIVATED EUCALYPTUS T REES IN THE LAND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ASSESSED TO TAX. 3. WE HEARD SHRI SAILENDRA MAMIDI, THE LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE SALE DEED WAS REFERRED TO DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER FOR DETERMINATION OF MARKET VALUE. THE DIS TRICT REVENUE OFFICER, ON ISSUING NOTICE TO THE PURCHASER, DETERMINED THE MARKET VALUE AT 3 I.T.A. NO.1221/CHNY/18 1320/- PER SQ.FT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NO O CCASION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFIC ER IN WHICH THE MARKET VALUE WAS ESTIMATED AT 1320/- PER SQ.FT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE MARKET VALUE IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR, IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE MATTER T O DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER FOR DETERMINATION OF MARKET VALUE . MOREOVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO EXAMINE THE ADANGAL EXTRACT AND OTHER MATERIAL A ND FIND OUT WHETHER IT IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT. IF THE LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE ASSESSEE CULTIVATED THE SAME AS CLAIMED, THEN THE P ROFIT ON SALE OF SUCH LAND IS EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION. THESE ASPECTS WERE NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE AL L THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AND FIND OUT WHETHER THE LAND IN QUESTION IS AGRICU LTURAL LAND OR NOT AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH INDEPENDENTLY WI THOUT BEING INFLUENCED BY THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OR BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THIS ORDE R. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 4 I.T.A. NO.1221/CHNY/18 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11 TH OCTOBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 11 TH OCTOBER, 2018. KRI. - +056 76'0 /COPY TO: 1. )*/ APPELLANT 2. +,)*/ RESPONDENT 3. PRINCIPAL CIT, MADUAI-2, MADURAI 5. 68 +0 /DR 6. 9& : /GF.