Prashanth Krishna Singh, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1245/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8574 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTHJCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 50C

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 ./ ITA NO.1245/MDS/2016 * +* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI PRASHANTH KRISHNA SINGH, NEW NO.11, KASTURI ESTATE, 2 ND STREET, POES GARDEN ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 086. PAN : BFFPS 3337 P V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 3(2), CHENNAI - 600 006. (-./ APPELLANT) (/0-./ RESPONDENT) -. 1 2 / APPELLANT BY : SH. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE /0-. 1 2 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT ' 1 3& / DATE OF HEARING : 25.07.2016 45+ 1 3& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.09.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -4, DATED 16.02.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. SH. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES MOTHER SMT. LAVANYA K UMARI OWNED 2 I.T.A. NO.1245/MDS/2016 A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT OLD NO.6, KASTURI ESTATE II STREET, CHENNAI. ON 13.07.2007, SMT. LAVANYA KUMARI EXECUTED A SETTL EMENT DEED IN FAVOUR OF HER TWO SONS, INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE B EFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUNSEL, THE ASSESSE E 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 ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED ONLY ` 1,80,20,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPI TAL GAIN, ADOPTED THE VALUE ADOPTED BY SUB-REGISTRAR FOR REGI STRATION OF DOCUMENT UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE APPROVED VALUER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE LOCATION OF PROPERTY AND THE IMPERFECTIONS OF THE PLOT, ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF L AND AT ` 1,19,00,000/- AND OPINED THAT THE RATE OF ` 1,20,00,000/- COULD BE ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFI CER ESTIMATED THE MARKET VALUE AT ` 1,53,16,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE APPROVED VALUER ESTIMATED THE SALE CONSIDERATIO N ONLY AT ` 62,50,000/-. THE CIT(APPEALS) WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE LOCATION OF PROPERTY, SIMPLY ADOPTED THE DEPART MENTAL VALUATION 3 I.T.A. NO.1245/MDS/2016 OFFICERS REPORT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, TH E DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENTA L VALUATION OFFICER. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL VAL UATION OFFICER HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE OBJECTIONS RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE, INCLUDING THE VALUATION REPORT FILED BY T HE APPROVED VALUER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO DETERMINATION OF SALE CONSIDERATION UNDER SECTION 5 0C OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. THE CIT (APPEALS), BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE VALUATION MADE BY THE DEPAR TMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER, ADOPTED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERT Y AT ` 1,53,15,300/-. THE ASSESSEE BEING ONE OF THE CO-OW NERS, ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER, THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS TAKEN AT ` 76,58,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE OTHER CO-OWNER APPEA RS TO HAVE NOT CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) OR THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. IN FACT, THE OTHER CO-OWNER ACCEPTED THE VALUATION MADE BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. THEREFORE, ACCORDI NG TO THE LD. 4 I.T.A. NO.1245/MDS/2016 D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN THE VALUE OF THE LAND AT ` 1,53,15,300/- AND THE ASSESSEE BEING A CO-OWNER HAV ING 50% SHARE, IT WAS TAKEN AS ` 76,58,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE A T ALL. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER 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 THE 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 TERM SAYS THA T WHEN THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CONSIDERATION ON TRANSFER OF CAPI TAL ASSET, THE VALUATION FIXED BY THE 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 GAIN. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTRATION A UTHORITIES FOR STAMP DUTY EXCEEDS FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUA TION OF CAPITAL ASSET TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. 5 I.T.A. NO.1245/MDS/2016 6. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, ADMITTEDLY, THE CLAIM BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES FOR STAMP DUTY EXCEEDED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. WHE N THE VALUATION MADE BY THE VALUATION OFFICER EXCEEDED THE VALUE AD OPTED BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES FOR STAMP DUTY, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE SHA LL BE TAKEN AS FULL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE A S A RESULT OF TRANSFER. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE CLAI MS THAT THE PROPERTY 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 THIS VALUE AND THE ASSESSEE BEI NG ONE OF THE CO- OWNERS, ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER, HAS TAKEN 50% OF VA LUATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THI S TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6 I.T.A. NO.1245/MDS/2016 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ' #$ ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016. KRI. 1 /3#8 98+3 /COPY TO: 1. -. /APPELLANT 2. /0-. /RESPONDENT 3. ' :3 () /CIT(A)-4, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-5, CHENNAI. 5. 8; /3 /DR 6. * < /GF.