Padmini Balagopal, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2080/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8143 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: K BALASUBR AMANIAN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . ! , ' # $ [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.2080/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 MS. PADMINI BALAGOPAL NO.1B, RAMNIVAS, ELADAMS ROAD ALWARPET, CHENNAI 600 018 VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER BUSINESS WARD XV92) CHENNAI [PAN AFKPP 7329 A ] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 07 - 12 - 2015 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 - 02 - 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, CHENNA I, DATED 18.8.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 . 2. SHRI K BALASUBRAMANIAN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD HER LANDED PROPER TY FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF ` 1 CRORE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C OF THE ACT REFE RRED THE MATTER TO ITA NO.2080/15 :- 2 -: THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER(DVO) AND ESTIMAT ED THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT ` 1,42,12,000/-. REFERRING TO THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT BOTH TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW ADMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY IS IRREGULAR IN SHAPE, T HE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY IS VERY NARROW, THE EXISTING LEGAL PROBLEM S AND THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY SCHOOL. THESE ARE DISADVANTAGEOUS FA CTORS, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONSIDER ALL THESE FAC TORS WHILE ESTIMATING THE SALE CONSIDERATION. REFERRING TO THE REGISTERE D VALUERS REPORT, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE REGISTERED VALUER, A FTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTORS, ESTIMATED THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT 50% OF THE GUIDELINE VALUE AS ON 2.5.20 08. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING, TH E REGISTERED VALUER ESTIMATED THE VALUE AT ` 1,10,82,286/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THIS ESTIMATION ITSELF IS VERY HIGH. THEREFORE, TH E VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE FIXED AT ` 1,05,00,000/-. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH THERE IS NO REFERENCE IN THE DVOS REPORT ABOUT THE EXISTENC E OF THE BUILDING AND THE DVO AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTORS GAVE DISCOUNT AND ESTIMATED THE MARKET VALUE AT ` 1,42,12,000/-, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE DVO HAS ESTIMATED THE CO ST OF BUILDING AT ` 5,18,500/- AND THE COST OF THE LAND AT ` 1,36,83,459/-. THEREFORE, THE DVO HAS ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE EXISTING BUILDING ON THE LAND. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LD. COUNSEL CLARIFIED THAT ` 1.20 ITA NO.2080/15 :- 3 -: CRORES WOULD BE A REASONABLE ESTIMATION OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION U/S 50C OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED THA T HE IS LEAVING THE MATTER TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH SINCE THE MAT TER HAS TO BE SETTLED BY ESTIMATION. 3. WE HEARD SHRI P RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE DVO ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF THE LAND AT ` 1,36,93,459/- AND THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING AT ` 5,18,500/-, THE TOTAL VALUE AT ` 1,42,12,000/-. HOWEVER, THE REGISTERED VALUER ESTIMATED THE VALUE AT ` 1,10,82,286/-. THE REGISTERED VALUER HAS TAKEN THE MARKET VALUE AT 50% OF THE GUIDELINE VALUE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE, ESTIMATION OF THE VALUE OF THE LAND AND BUILDING AT ` 1,20,00,000/- WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE. BY TAKING INTO CONSI DERATION ALL THE FACTORS AND THE REPORTS OF THE DVO AND THE REGISTER ED VALUER, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ESTIMATI NG THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT ` 1,20,00,000/- U/S 50C OF THE ACT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LO WER AUTHORITIES ARE ITA NO.2080/15 :- 4 -: MODIFIED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO A DOPT THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT ` 1,20,00,000/-. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH FEBRUARY, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 5 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF