S.R.K.Thirunarayanamoorthy, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1294/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8146 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: B SURESH
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Value adopted by valuation officer; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1294/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) MR. SRK THIRUNARAYANAMOORTHY, G BLOCK, 10 TH STREET, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI-600 102. VS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(I/C), RANGE-XIV, CHENNAI-34. PAN:AFRPT1648F ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. B.SURESH, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 9 TH JANUARY, 2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 TH JANUARY, 2017 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- VII, CHENNAI DATED 08.08.2014 IN ITA NO.984/13-14 P ASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 250(6) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS A PPEAL, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW:- I) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) IS OPPOSED TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE. II) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE WITH REG ARD TO COST OF IMPROVEMENT IN THE PROPERTY OF RS.11,56,130 /- AND 2 ITA NO.1294 /MDS/2016 EXPENSES IN RELATION TO TRANSFER OF RS.20,00,000/- AND ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT BY RS.3,15,000/- IN SPITE OF FURNISHING PROOF FOR THE EXPENSES. III) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING A NON-EXISTENT INCOME OF RS.1,00,000/- WITHOUT HAVING ANY PROOF OR VALID EVI DENCE BUT ON SUSPICION ONLY. IV) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADOPTION GUIDELINE VALU E OF RS.2,77,10,000/- AS SALE CONSIDERATION INSTEAD OF RS.2,10,00,000/- IN SPITE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT DECISION THAT MARKET VALUE IS DIFFERENT FROM GUIDEL INE VALUE. V) THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY THAT WAS TRANSFERRED CONSISTS OF TWO CATEGORIES I.E.(I) COMMERCIAL (II) SCHOOL (RESIDENT IAL) AND SHOULD HAVE ADOPTED TWO DIFFERENT VALUES FOR THE SA ME. VI) THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN JUSTIFYING THE COMPLETIO N OF ASSESSMENT WITHOUT RECEIVING THE DVO REPORT WHICH IS MANDATORY AS PER SEC.50C(2) & (3) AND AGAINST THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND CAPITAL GAINS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 11.11.2009 ADM ITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,59,28,400/-. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP F OR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 06.09.2010. SUBSEQUENTLY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SE CTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 23.12.2011 WHEREIN HE MADE CER TAIN DISALLOWANCES. 3 ITA NO.1294 /MDS/2016 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD SOLD IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR A LANDED P ROPERTY AT DOOR NO.81 & 82, KONNUR HIGH ROAD, AYANAVARAM, CHENNAI-23 COMPRISED IN S.NO.26/1 & 27 IN BLOCK NO. 26 OF AYANAPURAM VILLAGE, PURASAWAKKAM PERAMBUT TALUK VID E DOCUMENT NO.451 OF 2008 DATED 15.04.2008 TO SHRI VA RNIT JAIN FOR SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,10,00,000/-. HOWEVER, IN THE SALE DEED, THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS STATED AS RS.2,77,10,000/-. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE RAISED OBJECTIONS FOR ADOPTING THE MAR KET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 50C(2) O F THE ACT. HENCE THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO DVO. SINCE THE VAL UATION REPORT COULD NOT BE OBTAINED WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT AS THE CASE WAS TIME BARR ING ON 31.12.2011, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER TH E MARKET VALUE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AS FOLLOWS:- SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER SALE DEED : RS.2,77,10 ,000 4 ITA NO.1294 /MDS/2016 LESS: INDEXED COST OF LAND : RS.4,83,817 EXPENSES ON LEGAL & BROKERAGE: RS.13,24,753 RS. 18,08,570 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS RS.2,59,01,430 5. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) ALSO WITHOUT OBTAINING THE DVO REPORT CON FIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSER VING AS UNDER:- 4. PERUSAL OF THE SALE DEED OBTAINED BY THE ITO, XIV(3), CHENNAI, FROM SUB- REGISTRAR, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI REGARDING THE PROPERTY SOLD REVEALS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,10,00,000/- WHEREAS MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS RS.2, 77,10,000/-. BUT THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS BY THE ASSESSEE REVEALS THAT RS.2,10,00,000/- ONLY WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SEC.50C(L) OF THE ACT WAS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND INFORMED THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY. AS THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED, THE AO REFERRED THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO THE VALUATION OFFICER WHO INFORMED THE ASSESSEE IN HIS LETTER DATED 04.12.2012 PROPOSING TO ESTIMATE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.2,77,10,000/-. AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER, THE AO TOOK THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TO COMPUTE CAPITAL GAINS AS PER SEC.50C(1) OF THE ACT. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY DID NOT OBJECT TO THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY NOR ANY REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY OTHER AUTHORITY, COURT OR THE HIGH COURT. IT IS TO BE OBSERVED HERE THAT THE VALUATION FIXED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY IS NOT AN ARBITRARY ONE. IT IS FIXED AFTER FOLLOWING THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE UNDER THE STAMPS ACT. THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SEC.50C OF THE ACT WAS UPHELD BY THE MADRAS HIGH 5 ITA NO.1294 /MDS/2016 COURT IN THE CASE OF PALANISAMY KR VS UNION OF INDIA (200S) 306 ITR 61. IN THIS CASE, TWO INDEPENDENT AUTHORITIES CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY I.E. STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AND THE VALUATION OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT FIXED THE VALUE AT RS.2,77,10,000/-. THE ASSESSEE'S ARGUMENT THAT THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN A SCHOOL ZONE AND FETCHED A LESSOR PRICE IS NOT TENABLE BECAUSE THE PURCHASER DID NOT OBJECT TO THE VALUATION FIXED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT BRING ANY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF SALE AT A LESSER VALUE IN THE SAME LOCALITY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE AO IN ADOPTING THE VALUE AT RS.2,77,10,OOO/-. THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE AO IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 50C(1) OF THE ACT AND DUE PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED BY THE AO IN ADOPTING THE VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED ON THIS ISSUE ARE THEREFORE DISMISSED. 4.1 OUT OF RS.25,80,888/- CLAIMED ON LEGAL, BROKERAGE AND OTHER EXPENSES, THE AO ALLOWED RS.13,24,753/- AND DISALLOWED RS.1,OO,OOO/- BEING EXPENDITURE ON LEGAL OPINION ON CONSULTING AND DRAFTING CHARGES AND RS.11,56,130/- BEING EXPENSES ON FEES PAID TO CHENNAI CORPORATION FOR DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF 15000 SQ.FT. COMMERCIAL SPACE AS PER SALE AGREEMENT. THE AO DISALLOWED THE ABOVE TWO PAYMENTS AS NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED, FOR LEGAL OPINION CHARGES. THE PAYMENT TO CHENNAI CORPORATION IS NOT RELATED TO THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY AND HENCE DISALLOWED. 4.2 THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY CORPORATION OF CHENNAI FOR A SUM OF RS.L1,56,130/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO ENCLOSED A COPY OF CHEQUE FOR RS.11,56,130/- IN FAVOUR OF COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI FOR PERUSAL. CLOSE SCRUTINY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF CHENNAI TO THE ASSESSEE 6 ITA NO.1294 /MDS/2016 REVEALS THE FOLLOWING DETAILS: CMDA DEVELOPMENT CHARGES RS. 9,000 BUILDING LICENSE FEES RS. 4,000 DEMOLITION FEES RS. 47,000 OPEN SPACE RESERVATION CHARGES 10,65,OOO SCRUTINY FEES RS. 130 REGULARISATION CHARGES RS. 31,000 TOTAL RS.11,56,130 4.3 BUT IT WAS NOT EXPLAINED AS TO HOW THE ABOVE PAYMENT RELATED TO THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED. INSTEAD IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE PROPERTY THAT WAS TRANSFERRED CONSISTS OF TWO CATEGORIES I.E. COMMERCIAL AND SCHOOL AND THEY HAVE TO BE VALUED DIFFERENTLY. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID TO CHENNAI CORPORATION RS.11,55,130/- FOR DEMOLITION AND RS.19,00,000/- FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL AND BOTH THE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE SCHOOL WAS 100 YEARS OLD AND THE ASSESSEE IS A HONORARY CORRESPONDENT OF THE SCHOOL WHICH IS AN AIDED SCHOOL. PERUSAL OF A LETTER WRITTEN BY HEADMISTRESS OF SRI ARANGIAH NAIDU MIDDLE SCHOOL TO THE AO REVEALS THAT THE SCHOOL HAS BEEN FUNCTIONING ON PLOT A AND PLOT B AT DOOR NO.81&82, KONNUR HIGH ROAD, AYANAVARAM, CHENNAI. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE PROPOSED TO SELL THE PLOT A AND THE SCHOOL AGREED TO VACATE THE PLOT A ON THE CONDITION THAT THE LANDLORD HAS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SCHOOL BUILDING IN THE BACK SIDE OF PLOT A MEASURING 5468 SQ.FT. AS THE SCHOOL CANNOT BE CLOSED WITHOUT GOVERNMENT PERMISSION. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE SCHOOL HEADMISTRESS INSISTED THE LANDLORD TO CONSTRUCT AN AC SHEET SHED IN THE SECOND FLOOR OVER THE EXISTING SCHOOL BUILDING IN PLOT B TO ENABLE THEM TO SHIFT THE PREMISES FUNCTIONING IN PLOT A. 4.4 THE LETTER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE MISUSED HIS POSITION AS THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE SCHOOL AND WANTED TO 7 ITA NO.1294 /MDS/2016 SELL THE PART OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE SCHOOL BY HIS FOREFATHERS. IN ORDER TO FACILITATE HIS WISH TO PART WITH THE PROPERTY OF THE SCHOOL, A LETTER WAS OBTAINED FROM THE SCHOOL HEAD MISTRESS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING IN THE BACK SIDE OF THE PLOT A. THE LETTER OF THE HEADMISTRESS WAS SILENT ON THE DEMOLITION OF ANY BUILDING EITHER IN PLOT A AND PLOT B. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE WHEN THE SCHOOL EXISTED ON PLOT A AND PLOT B OF THE ASSESSEE, IT MEANS THE ASSESSEE'S FOREFATHERS ALLOWED THE USE OF LAND FOR THE SCHOOL. BUT THE ASSESSEE MANAGED TO GET PART OF THE LAND BACK AND SOLD IT. IT IS NOT KNOWN, THOUGH IT IS NOT THE CONCERN OF THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, HOW THE ASSESSEE GOT PART OF THE LAND WHICH WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE'S FOREFATHERS TO THE SCHOOL AS A PHILANTHROPIC GESTURE. THE EVENTS NARRATED ABOVE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY. THE EXPENSES INCURRED MADE HIM RICHER BY RS.2,10,00,000/- AS PER SALE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT. THEREFORE, THE SUM OF RS.11,56,130/- AND RS.19,00,000/- FOR DEMOLITION, CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING RESPECTIVELY ARE NOT IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSFER AND HENCE NOT ALLOWABLE. THE AO CORRECTLY DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE AND I DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE DISALLOWANCES MADE. THE DISALLOWANCES ARE THEREFORE CONFIRMED. 4.5 IT IS TO BE OBSERVED HERE THAT THE GOVERNMENT AIDED SCHOOL OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS THE CORRESPONDENT LOST THE LAND ON WHICH PART OF THE SCHOOL WAS FUNCTIONING. THE VACATED PORTION OF THE LAND WAS SOLD FOR A HUGE SUM OF RS.2.10 CRORES WHEREAS THE ALLEGED AMOUNT SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE IN RETURN WAS RS.30,55,130/- (RS.LL,55,130 + RS.19,00,000). PERUSAL OF DEED OF SETTLEMENT DATED 13.02.2007 MADE BY THE SETTLER MRS. J. VIJAYALAKSHMI IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE REVEALS THAT THE LATE HUSBAND OF THE SETTLER ESTABLISHED A SCHOOL IN THE SAID PREMISES AND MANAGED THE SAME. SOME PART OF THE SAID PREMISES 8 ITA NO.1294 /MDS/2016 WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ABOVE SETTLEMENT DEED. THE SETTLED PORTION OF THE LAND WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH RESULTED IN THE CAPITAL GAINS. THE LAND THAT WAS ALLOTTED TO THE PURPOSE OF SCHOOL WAS TAKEN BACK BY THE ASSESSEE AND SOLD TO THE THIRD PARTY. TO MANAGE THE WHOLE TRANSACTION THE ASSESSEE ARRANGED THE AFFAIRS IN SUCH A WAY THAT HE EXPENDED SOME EXPENDITURE ON CONSTRUCTION IN PLOT B IN ORDER TO FREE PLOT A WHICH IS SOLD. THIS IS PURELY MANIPULATION AND NOT EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY. 4.6 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,00,000/- ON LEGAL EXPENSES, NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED. THE AR IN HIS LETTER DATED 05.11.2013 STATED AS UNDER: 'WITH REGARD TO LEGAL FEES THE AMOUNT WAS PAID AT THE TIME OF DRAFTING THE PARTITIONS AND SETTLEMENT MADE BY MY RELATIVES. HENCE IT IS PART OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION. THE LEGAL FEES FOR DRAFTING THE SALE DEED WAS NEITHER PAID BY ME NOR I CLAIMED IT AS A DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN.' BUT IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE A SUM OF RS.25,80,883/- WAS CLAIMED AS EXPENSES ON LEGAL AND BROKERAGE WHICH INCLUDED A SUM OF RS.1,00,000/- ON LEGAL OPINION ON CONSULTING AND DRAFTING CHARGES. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONTRADICTORY AND NOT ALLOWABLE AND THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE IS CONFIRMED. 4.7 REGARDING THE BROKERAGE PAID AT RS.3,15,OOO/-, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED AS TO WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. IN RESPONSE TWO PERSONS WHO RECEIVED THE BROKERAGE WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED. THEY WERE EXAMINED. THEY ARE NOT AWARE OF LAND TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE BUYERS. THEY ARE PERSONS OF NO MEANS. THEY COULD NOT GET INVOLVED IN 9 ITA NO.1294 /MDS/2016 THIS TYPE OF TRANSACTION WHICH INVOLVES HUGE MONEY. THEY THEMSELVES STATED THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW THE BUYER AND SELLER. THE ALLEGED RECEIPT BY THEM WERE RS.2,15,OOO/- (RS.1,OO,OOO/- BY NAGARAJAN AND RS.1,15,OOO/- BY BALAKRISHNAN). ANOTHER PERSON WHO RECEIVED RS.L,OO,OOO/- WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDING, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DISALLOW THE BROKERAGE OF RS.3,15,OOO/- ALLOWED IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. TO THAT EXTENT, INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ENHANCED. 4.8 REGARDING ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF RS.L,OO,OOO/- FROM OTHER SOURCES, NO CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE FUNCTIONING OF THE SCHOOL WAS FURNISHED EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO BE THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE SCHOOL. HENCE THE ADDITION STANDS CONFIRMED IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER EXPLANATION. 6. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AT THE OUT SET SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT NEITHER THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER NOR THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT AND THERE FORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER REQUESTED THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL AL SO MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.A.O FOR FRESH C ONSIDERATION 10 ITA NO.1294 /MDS/2016 THEREBY PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE WITH ONE MORE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD SINCE ON THE EARLIER OCCASION THE ASSES SMENT WAS HURRIEDLY COMPLETED DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME AS T HE ASSESSMENT WAS TIME BARRING. 7. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE L EARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND REQUESTED FOR CONFIRM ING THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, HOWEVER COULD NO T CONFRONT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.A.R. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DID NO T COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE T O ESTABLISH THE CORRECT MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND SOLD BY HIM. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS DONE HURRIEDLY DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS TIME BARRI NG. 11 ITA NO.1294 /MDS/2016 THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY RE MIT BACK THE ENTIRE CASE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, WE ALSO DIRECT THE AS SESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO-OPERATE WITH THE REVENUE IN THEIR PROCE EDINGS FAILING WHICH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT L IBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MERIT & LAW BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 10 TH JANUARY, 2017 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATE: 10.01. 2017 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF