MR. SAMUEL THANGARAJ PONNIAH, SALEM V. ITO WARD 1 (5), SALEM

ITA 1773/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3827 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S BHARATH
• Assessee Lawyers: T S LAKSHMIVENKATARAMAN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Set aside
• Section: 50C; 54F; 48; 148; 54; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B BENCH, CHENNAI, CAMP AT COIMBATORE ... , ! '#, $ #% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.1773/CHNY/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-2011) SHRI. SAMUEL THANGARAJ PONNIAH, NO.83, 4 TH CROSS THIRU NAGAR, HASTHAMPATTY, SALEM 636 007 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I (5) SALEM PAN: AJTPP 3854F ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATARAMAN, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. BHARATH, CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 07.02.2020 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.02.2020 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALEM DA TED 01.03.2018 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2 I.T.A. NO.1773/18 2. SHRI T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATARAMAN, LD. REPRESENTATI VE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PR. CIT REVISED THE ASSESSMENT B Y ISSUING DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO WITHDRAW THE EXEMPTION GRA NTED U/S. 54 OF THE INCOME TAX, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT). THE PR. CI T HAS ALSO DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REWORK THE LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C OF THE ACT. AS FAR AS THE S ECOND DIRECTION WITH REGARD TO REWORKING OF THE CAPITAL GAIN BECOME INF RUCTUOUS SINCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THE MA TTER. AS FAR AS THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S. 54 OF THE ACT, THE LD. REPRE SENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE ISSUE FOUND THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS RS. 5,24,278/- AND ACCORDING LY, ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE PROPER ENQUIRY AND RECORDED A FINDING THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE PR.CIT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING HIS JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. BHARATH, THE LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. NO DEDUCTION WAS ALSO CLAIMED IN THE RETURN FILED CONSEQUENT TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 1 48 OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A SSESSEE FILED A LETTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, T HE PR. CIT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. THE LD. 3 I.T.A. NO.1773/18 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD VS. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC). 4. HAVING HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSE E AND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RELEVAN T MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGM ENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GEOZTE (INDIA) LTD. IN THE VERY SAME JUDGMENT, THE APEX COURT CATEGORIC ALLY FOUND THAT THE POWER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WILL NOT IMPINGE TO ADMIT AD DITIONAL OR ANY OTHER GROUND. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO IMPEDIMENT FOR THI S TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM U/S.54F OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, THE APEX CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHELLY PRODUCTS AND ANOTHER, (2003) 261 ITR 367 HAD CATEGORICALLY FOUND THAT IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO BRING T O THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANY CLAIM IN THE COURSE OF THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INC OME. THIS JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LATEST JUD GMENT IN GEOZTE (INDIA) LTD (SUPRA). THEREFORE THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GEOZTE (INDIA) LTD IS PER INCURIAM AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY INVESTED IN A RESIDENTIAL F LAT AND ASSESSING OFFICER ADMITTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR EXERCISI NG THE JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF 4 I.T.A. NO.1773/18 THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPH OLD THE ORDER OF THE PR.CIT AND ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE PR. CIT IS SET ASIDE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IN ITA NO.1773/ CHNY/2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7TH FEBRUARY, 2020 AT CAMP AT COIMBATORE. SD/- SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /COIMBATORE. /DATED, THE 7 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. KV #$ %&'& /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. * ( )/CIT(A) 4. * /CIT 5. &+, - /DR 6. ,./ /GF