SHRI K. NIRANJANIAH, , CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW - 8 (4), CHENNAI

ITA 2170/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4118 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J PAVITHRAN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Valuation report

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , , ! '# BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. I.T.A. NO. 2170/CHNY/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SHRI K. NIRANJANIAH, A-23, SHANTHI LEMON TRADERS, PERIYAR WHOLESALE VEGETABLE MARKET, KOYAMBEDU, CHENNAI 600 092. [PAN: AABPN 4298E] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 8(4), CHENNAI. ( / APPELLANT) ( $%&' /RESPONDENT ) &' ( ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE $%&' ( ) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. J. PAVITHRAN KUMAR, JCIT + ( ,! /DATE OF HEARING : 13.02.2020 -./ ( ,! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.02.2020 / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-9 IN ITA NO. 7 4/CIT(A)-9/2016- 17 DATED 21.06.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 . :-2-: ITA NO.2170/CHNY/201 9 2. SHRI K.NIRANJANIAH, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2014- 15, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE S OLD A PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION WHICH IS LOWER THAN THE GUIDELINE VAL UE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OF FICER PROPOSED TO ASSESS THE GUIDELINE VALUE. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO IT AND HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE VALUAT ION OFFICER. SINCE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING BARRED AND THE VALUATION OFF ICER HAS NOT SENT THE VALUATION REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED T HE ASSESSMENT BY ADOPTING THE GUIDELINE VALUE AS THE MARKET VALUE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THAT ORDER, THE ASSE SSEE FILED THIS APPEAL. 3. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR THE REASON THAT THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS NOT SENT THE VALUATION REPORT AND NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED IN WAITING IN DEFINITELY FOR THE VALUATION REPORT. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY STRANGE. THE REVENUE HAS REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. IT HAS ALL PO WERS TO OBTAIN THE VALUATION REPORT AND THEN DETERMINE THE VALUE IN AC CORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE FOUND FAULT FOR THE DELAY CA USED BY THE STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND HENCE, THE LD.AR PLEADED TO ALLOW T HE APPEAL. PER CONTRA, THE LD.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. :-3-: ITA NO.2170/CHNY/201 9 4. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS CLEAR FRO M THE ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN PROPER STEPS TO OBT AIN THE VALUATION REPORT TILL DATE. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE FOUND FAULT AND SLAPPED WITH THE TAX FOR THE FAILUR E OF THE STATUTORY AUTHORITIES, FOR NOT ADHERING TO THE TIME SCHEDULE. THEREFORE, WE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , WHO SHALL CAUSE THE VALUATION OFFICER TO FURNISH APPROPRIATE REPORT WIT HIN A REASONABLE TIME, FURNISH A COPY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS OBJECTION AN D AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE SHALL PASS THE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, 14 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) !' /VICE PRESIDENT SD/- ( # $ ) (S. JAYARAMAN) % & /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0' /DATED: 14 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 RSR '1 ( $2,3 43/, /COPY TO: 1. &' / APPELLANT 2. $%&' /RESPONDENT 3. + 5, ) ( /CIT(A) 4. + 5, /CIT 5. 367 $2,2 /DR 6. 789 : /GF