R.Mariappan, CHENNAI V. ITO, Tuticorin

ITA 1222/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 122221714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR I V IJAYAKUMAR IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: R KUMAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1222(MDS)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI R.MARIAPPAN, PROP: SRI MEENAKSHI JEWELLERY MART, SOUTH BAZAR KOVILPATTI. PAN ACHPM5421C. VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD I(3), TUTICORIN. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. KUMAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : DR. I.VIJAY AKUMAR, IRS, CIT-DR. DATE OF HEARING : 3 RD OCTOBER, 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 3 RD OCTOBER, 2011. O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2006-07. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-I AT MADURAI DATED 29-4-2011. - - ITA NO.1222 OF 2011 2 2. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UP HOLDING THE ADDITION OF ` 13,31,100/- MADE UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, RELYING ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 50C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NO T DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE VALUATION OF THE KALYANAMANDAPAM AT KOVILPATTI SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE, UNDER SECTION 50C(2), INSPITE OF A SPECIFIC GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MATTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. 3. AN ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, PASSED IN THE CASE OF MEGHRAJ BAID V S. ITO, 23 SOT 25, WAS RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEAR ING FOR THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE HAS HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REG ARD TO LOWER CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE SHOULD REFER THE - - ITA NO.1222 OF 2011 3 MATTER TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER FOR GE TTING ITS MARKET RATE ESTABLISHED AS ON THE DATE OF SALE. 5. HAVING HEARD BOTH SIDES IN DETAIL, WE FIND THAT IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IF THE ASSESSEE AGAIN INSISTS FOR REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE DVO, THE SAME MAY BE ACCEPTED AND THE ASSESSMENT MAY BE THER EAFTER COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. IN RESULT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON MONDAY , THE 3 RD OF OCTOBER, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 3 RD OCTOBER, 2011. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.