Dushyanth Krishna Singh, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1244/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8082 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Fair market value
• Section: 50C; 54F

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . . ' # $ , % &' ( [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO. 1244/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI DUSHYANTH KRISHNA SINGH NEW NO.11, KASTURI ESTATE 2 ND STREET POES GARDEN ROAD CHENNAI 600 086 VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON-CORPORATE WARD 3(2) CHENNAI [PAN BVVPS 4178 Q] ( )* / APPELLANT) ( +,)* /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 24 - 10 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 - 11 - 2016 / O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-4, CHENNA I DATED 16.2.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EXCEPT GROUND NO.2, ARE R ELATED TO THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 50C OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT). ITA NO.1244/16 :- 2 -: 3. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEES MOTHER SMT. LAVANYA KUMARI OWNE D A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT OLD NO.6, KASTURI ESTATE II STREET, CHE NNAI. ON 13.07.2007, SMT. LAVANYA KUMARI EXECUTED A SETTLEME NT DEED IN FAVOUR OF HER TWO SONS, INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD THE SAID PROPERTY ON 19.09.2008 JOINTLY, ALONG HIS BROTHER, FOR A TOTAL SUM OF ` 1,25,00,000/-. HOWEVER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY, THE SRO HAS ADOPTED THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF ` 1,80,20,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURP OSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN, REFERRED THE ISSUE TO THE V ALUATION OFFICER AND THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS VALUED THE FAIR MARKET VA LUE OF THE PROPERTY AT ` 1,53,16,000/- AND THE ASSESSEES SHARE WAS DETERMIN ED AT ` 76,58,000/- BEING 50% OF THE SHARE. THE ASSESSING O FFICER ADOPTED THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND COMPUTED THE CA PITAL GAINS U/S 50C OF THE ACT. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPROVED VALUER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE LOC ATION OF PROPERTY AND THE IMPERFECTIONS OF THE PLOT, ESTIMATED THE VA LUE OF LAND AT ` 1,19,00,000/- AND OPINED THAT THE RATE OF ` 1,20,00,000/- COULD BE ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AND COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS AS PER TH E VALUATION OF THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER ESTIMATED AGAINST TH E SALE OF ` 62,50,000/-. FURTHER THE PROPERTY WAS DEVOLVED UP O N HIM BY WAY OF ITA NO.1244/16 :- 3 -: SETTLEMENT DEED EXECUTED BY HIS MOTHER IN HIS FAVOU R IN THE YEAR 2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE DATE OF ACQUISI TION AS 2007 AND WORKED OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS AFTER ALLOWING THE COS T OF INDEXATION AS ON THE DATE OF 2007 INSTEAD OF THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER FROM WHOM THE PROPERTY WAS DEVOLVED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH E ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) CON FIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADOPTING THE VALUE DET ERMINED BY THE DVO FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE DATE OF ACQUISITION AS THE DATE ON WHICH THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER AS PER SECTION 49 OF THE ACT AND REWORK THE CAPITAL GAINS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS APPEAL BEFORE US CHALLENGING THE ADOPTION OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO. 5. DURING THE APPEAL THE LD. A.R ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE LOCATION OF P ROPERTY, SIMPLY ADOPTED THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICERS REPORT . ACCORDING TO THE LD. A.R, THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE, THE ITA NO.1244/16 :- 4 -: CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING THE VALUE DETER MINED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL PLACED BEFORE US. SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SHR I PRASHANTH KRISHNA SINGH, THE CO-OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HAS COME UP BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A.NO.1245/MDS/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 AND TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 15.9.2016 HAS EXAMINED AND DEC IDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ESTIMATION OF VALUE OF LAND UNDER SECTION 50C OF TH E ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50 C OF THE ACT. SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IN CATEGORICAL TER M SAYS THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CONSIDERATION ON TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET, THE VALUATION FIXED BY T HE STATE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES UNDER THE STAMP ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, SHALL BE TAKEN AS VALUE OF CONSIDERATION UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE ACT FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAI N. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES FOR STAMP DUTY EXCEEDS FAI R MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF CAPITA L ASSET TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. 6. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, ADMITTEDLY, THE CLAIM BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE VALUATION ADOPTE D BY THE AUTHORITIES FOR STAMP DUTY EXCEEDED THE FAIR ITA NO.1244/16 :- 5 -: MARKET VALUE. WHEN THE VALUATION MADE BY THE VALUATION OFFICER EXCEEDED THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES FOR STAMP DUTY, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES FOR STAMP D UTY PURPOSE SHALL BE TAKEN AS FULL CONSIDERATION RECEIV ED OR ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER. I N THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE PROPER TY WAS SOLD AT ` 1,25,00,000/- AND THE SUB-REGISTRAR ESTIMATED THE MARKET VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AT ` 1,80,20,000/-. IN FACT, THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER ESTIMATED THE VALUE AT ` 1,53,15,300/- , THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY ADOPTED T HIS VALUE AND THE ASSESSEE BEING ONE OF THE CO-OWNERS, ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER, HAS TAKEN 50% OF VALUATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SA ME IS CONFIRMED. 8. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, FOLLOWING THE DECISI ON OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI PRASHANTH KRISHNA SING H(SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) A ND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THIS GR OUND IS DISMISSED. 9. GROUND NO.2 IS RELATED TO NON ADJUDICATION OF RELIE F CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 54F OF INCOME TAX BY THE CIT(A ). THE ASSESSEE RAISED GROUND STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IN GROUND NO.7 FOR RELIEF U/S 54F WHICH WAS NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER. DURING THE APPEAL THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY ARGUMENT ON THIS GROUND. THEREFORE THIS GROUND IS D ISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA NO.1244/16 :- 6 -: 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH NOVEMBER, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . ' # $ ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 10 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF