Parvathi Ramani, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2145/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 214521714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURU BASHYAM IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2145(MDS)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 & S.P. NO.119(MDS)/2012 IN ITA NO.2145(MDS)/2012 SMT. PARVATHI RAMANI, FLAT NO.A-408, LAND MARK RESIDENCY, MADINAGUDA, HYDERABAD-500 050. PAN AAFPP1664A. VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD IV(3), CHENNAI. (APPELLANT/PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MEENAKSHISUNDARAM , ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GURU BASHYAM, IRS, JC IT DATE OF HEARING : 14 TH DECEMBER, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 TH DECEMBER, 2012 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2005-06. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE - - ITA2145 & SP 119 OF 2012 2 ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-VI II AT CHENNAI, DATED18.9.2012 AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSES SMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION143(3), READ WITH SECTION147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS THE QUANTUM OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS TO BE DETERMINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVYING CAPITAL GAINS TAX. THE ASSESSEE , FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS, R ELIES ON THE CONSIDERATION REFLECTED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED , WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIES ON THE GUIDELINE VALUE DEC LARED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES SO AS TO COMPLY WITH S ECTION 50C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IN THE COURSE OF HEAR ING OF THE APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE RELEVANT MAT ERIALS BEFORE HIM AND, THEREFORE, HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO ACC EPT THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES IN DETAIL, WE FIND THA T THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY COULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE - - ITA2145 & SP 119 OF 2012 3 DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER, IF THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A PROPER PETITION FOR THAT PURPOSE. NOW, THE ABSENCE OF SUC H A PETITION FROM THE ASSESSEE, BEING A TECHNICAL LAPSE, SHOULD NOT DEFEAT THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT IT I S A FIT CASE TO BE REMANDED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-COMPU TING THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS AFTER ANALYZING THE CONSIDE RATION TO BE ADOPTED FOR THAT PURPOSE, WHICH ALSO SHOULD INCLUDE THE REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE M AY MAKE A FORMAL APPLICATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, UP ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL REFER THE MATTER TO THE DEP ARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICE R SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. AS THE APPEAL ITSELF STANDS DISPOSED OFF, THE S TAY PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE TREATED AS INFRUCTUOUS AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. - - ITA2145 & SP 119 OF 2012 4 ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME O F HEARING ON FRIDAY, THE 14 TH OF DECEMBER, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) (S .S.GODARA) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 14 TH DECEMBER, 2012. V.A.P. COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GF.