M.RAMAMURTHY, MADURAI V. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-3(2), MADURAI

ITA 1588/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1290 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R ANITHA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! ' # , % #& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1588/CHNY/2019 ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI M. RAMAMURTHY, 4, AHIMSAPURAM 4 TH STREET, SELLUR, MADURAI 625 002. PAN : ADHPR 6602 B V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 3(2), INCOME TAX OFFICE, MADURAI-2. (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : NONE ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : MS. R. ANITHA, JCIT 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 27.08.2019 45* 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.09.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -1, MADURA I, DATED 01.03.2019 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD. THE REGISTRY HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE POSTAL ACKNOW LEDGEMENT AS PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. INSPITE OF RECEIVING T HE NOTICE BY RPAD, 2 I.T.A. NO.1588/CHNY/19 THE ASSESSEE CHOSE NOT TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUN AL WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. THEREFORE, WE HEA RD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PROCEEDED TO DISPOS E THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. MS. R. ANITHA, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE SOLD A PROPERTY FOR 1,01,00,000/- ALONG WITH TWO OTHER PERSONS AND CLAIMED LOSS OF 47,302/- WITH RESPECT TO HIS SHARE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT ON T HE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED, THE GUIDELINE VALUE WAS 1,92,00,000/-. BY ADOPTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'), ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., TH E 1/3 RD SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN AS 67,333/- AND ACCORDINGLY, THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS COMPUTED. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSES SEE NEVER ASKED FOR MAKING REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER . 4. HAVING HEARD THE LD. D.R., WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW INCLUDING THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS LESS THAN THE GUIDELINE VALUE. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THERE WAS NO ON MONEY PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF 3 I.T.A. NO.1588/CHNY/19 RECEIPT OF ON MONEY PAYMENT. IT IS A QUESTION OF V ALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF SALE. IF THE GUIDELINE VAL UE WAS MORE THAN THE SALE CONSIDERATION ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED, THEN IN VIEW OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THE GUIDELINE VALUE HAS TO BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. SINCE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE GUIDELINE VALUE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SA ME IS CONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 5 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' # ) ( . . . ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 5 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019. KRI. 0 .389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ;3 () /CIT(A)-1, MADURAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, MADURAI-2, MADURAI 5. 9< .3 /DR 6. ) = /GF.