ITO, CHENNAI V. Mrs. P.V. Seethala Devi, CHENNAI

ITA 212/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81263 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DAS GUPTA IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: S THYAGARAJAN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , !' , # $! % BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 212/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD-V(1), CHENNAI 34. APPELLANT) V. MRS. P.V.SEETHALA DEVI, NO.22, F-1, PRASHANTH FLAT, ASHOK NAGAR, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 24. PAN ADAPV8804E RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. DAS GUPTA, IRS, JCIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. THYAGARAJAN, CA ! / DATE OF HEARING : 13 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 '# ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 $& / O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE RELATES T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPE ALS)-V AT - - ITA 212 /14 2 CHENNAI, ON 10.10.2013. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS BELOW: 2.1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADD ITION OF ` 32,58,350/- MADE UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS (STCG). 2.2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED THAT H IS OBSERVATION, THE A.O. HAS NOT ACTED UPON THE ASSESSEES REQUEST TO REFER THE MATTER TO DVO (DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER), IS NOT BORNE OUT FROM RECORDS, INASMUCH AS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE SUCH A REQUEST BEFORE THE A.O. (ASSESSING OFFICER). 2.3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE, AT LEAST, DIRECTED THE A.O. TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER OBTAINI NG THE DVOS REPORT. 3. SHRI S. DAS GUPTA, THE LEARNED JOINT COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX, APPEARED FOR THE REVENUE AND SHRI S. TH YAGARAJAN, THE LEARNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT APPEARED FOR THE A SSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND HAD PURCHASE D A PLOT OF LAND AT SHOLINGANALLUR IN CHENNAI FOR ` 20,40,000/- ON 29.12.2006. THIS PROPERTY WAS SOLD ON 22.7.2008. THE SALES WERE MADE THROUGH TWO DIFFERENT SALE DEEDS FOR 5000 SQ.FT. AND - - ITA 212 /14 3 1000 SQ.FT. AREA FOR ` 48,33,300/- AND ` 9,67,000/-, RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE SALE VALUE CONCEDED BY THE PARTIES, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT GUIDELINE VAL UE OF THE SAID PROPERTY STOOD AT ` 1,20,00,000/-. HE INVOKED SEC.50C AND MADE CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITION IN THE QUANTUM OF CAPIT AL GAINS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTIES. THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE APPEALS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL. 5. THE APPEAL FILED BY HER HUSBAND, SHRI R. SIVAKUM AR IN ITA NO.1719/MDS/2013 HAS BEEN DISPOSED OFF BY ITAT, CHENNAI C BENCH THROUGH THEIR ORDER PASSED ON 4.4.2014. AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE, THE TRIBU NAL CAME TO A FINDING THAT REASONABLENESS OF THE SALE CONSIDERATI ON HAS BEEN VERY WELL EXPLAINED BY THE PARTIES AND AS SUCH, THE RE WAS NO REASON FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION TO THE APPARENT CONS IDERATIONS STATED IN THE SALE DEED. THE TRIBUNAL, ACCORDINGLY , UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) AN D REJECTED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND WAS UPHELD. THE ASSESSEE, BEING THE CO- - - ITA 212 /14 4 OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, THE SAID ORDER SQUARELY APPL IES IN HER CASE AS WELL. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS ) IS JUST AND PROPER AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 6. IN RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COU RT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON THURSDAY, THE 13 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( $ % ) ( &' . . . ( (VIKAS AWASTHY) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) ) *% /JUDICIAL MEMBER +,- /VICE-PRESIDENT .) /CHENNAI, /* /DATED, THE 13 TH NOVEMBER, 2014. MPO* *0 1$2$ /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. 3( /CIT(A) 4. 3 /CIT 5. $45 6 /DR 6. 5&7 /GF.