Umalatha Panjanathan, Secunderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(3), Hyderabad

ITA 1229/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0506 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 01-07-2021
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N SWAPNA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A - SMC , HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1228/HYD/2019 A.Y.: 2008 - 09 P. ROSELINE, SECUNDERABAD. PAN: AVUPP 1869 M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 15(3), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1229/HYD/2019 A.Y.: 2008 - 09 UMALATHA PANJANATHAN, SECUNDERABAD. PAN: BNFPP 1195 N VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 15(3), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1230/HYD/2019 A.Y.: 2008 - 09 SMT. BEAULAH JOSEPH, SECUNDERABAD. PAN: AJTPJ 6976 A VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 15(3), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1231/HYD/2019 A.Y.: 2008 - 09 SRI P. SAMUEL, SECUNDERABAD. PAN: AITPP 3275 D VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 15(3), HYDERABAD. 2 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1232/HYD/2019 A.Y.: 2008 - 09 SMT. VIJAYA RANI SERLA, SECUNDERABAD. PAN: DGQPS 5265 G VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 15(3), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM REVENUE BY SMT. N. SWAPNA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 01/07 /2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15 /07/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY , A.M: THE CAPTIONED FOUR APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A ) - 7, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NOS. 095, 097, 094, 0101 AND 0318 /CIT(A)/2016 - 17, DATED 08/05/2019 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09. 2. IN ALL THE APPEALS, T HE ASSESS EE S HA VE RAISED FIVE IDENTICAL GROUNDS AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: 1. THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASES IN PARTIALLY MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 12,27,350/ - FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL SA LE CONSIDERATION AND FAIR MARKET VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER BY COMPLETE DISREGARD TO MATERIAL PLACE ON RECORD. 2. THE HONBLE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALLOWED THE DISCOUNT 12.50% INSTEAD OF 5% OF 3 GUIDELINE VALUE AS THE LAND WAS CO - OWNED BY SIX MEMBERS OF FAMILY AND OTHER 12 MEMBERS WERE MADE PARTY TO THE CONTRACT. 3. THE H ONBLE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALLOWED THE DISCOUNT 30% INSTEAD OF 10% OF GUIDELINE VALUE AS THE LAND WAS IN LITIGATION SINCE 1997 AND WAS LIFE THREAT TO THE CO - OWNERS. 4. THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 12,27,350/ - BETWEEN SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 72,50,000/ - AND FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RS. 84,77,350/ - ESTIMATED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER BEING 16.93% WHICH IS MARGINALLY ABOVE TOLERANCE LIMIT / AND OF 15% LAID DOWN BY VARIOUS COURTS, THE HONBLE CIT(A) SHO ULD HAVE DELETED THE RESULTANT ADDITION. 5. ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT WILL BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE BENCH WHICH MAY BE C ONSIDERED OTHERWISE IT WILL LEAD TO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AND IRREPARABLE LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS PLEADED , THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNBALE TO PRODUCE THE SAME ON THE EARLIER INSTANCES BEFORE THE REVENUE DUE TO VARIOUS CONSTRAINTS . IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTL Y OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR AND PRAYED FOR CONFIRMING THE ORDERS OF THE LD. REVENUE AUT HORITIES. 4. I HAVE HEA RD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. FILING OF EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME WITHOUT PROPER REASON IS NOT APPRECIABLE . H OWEVER, CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. R EVENUE AUTHORITIES AND REQUESTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEES , I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION WITH FURTHER DIRECTION TO THE LD. AO TO 4 ADMIT ANY OTHER EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEES AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE CASES A ND AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERIT. I ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEES TO PROMPTLY COOPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THEY SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PROCEED WITH T HE CASE BASED ON THE MATERIALS BEFORE THEM. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 15 TH JULY, 2021. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 15 TH JULY , 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) (I) SMT. ROSELINE PANJANATHAN, PLOT NO.87, H.NO. 37 - 93/87/3, MADHURA NAGAR, NEREDMET, SECUNDERABAD. (II) SMT. UMALATHA PANJANATHAN, PLOT NO.87, H.NO. 37 - 93/87/3, MADHURA NAGAR, NEREDMET, SECUNDERABAD. (III) SMT. BEAU LAH JOSEPH, PLOT NO.87, H.NO. 37 - 93/87/3, MADHURA NAGAR, NEREDMET, SECUNDERABAD. (IV) SRI P. SAMUEL, PLOT NO.87, H.NO. 37 - 93/87/3, MADHURA NAGAR, NEREDMET, SECUNDERABAD. (V) SMT. VIJAYA RANI SERLA, PLOT NO.87, H.NO. 37 - 93/87/3, MADHURA NAGAR, NEREDMET, SECUNDERABAD. 2) (I) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 15(3), HYDERABAD. 3) (I) THE CIT(A) - 7, HYDERABAD 4) (I) THE PR.CIT - 7, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE