SMT. KALAVATHI RAJENDRAN, COIMBATORE V. ACIT, NCC - 2, , COIMBATORE

ITA 2172/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3257 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN TK
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Valuation report; Capital Gains

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: CHENNAI , ! '!# $ , % BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! ./ ITA NO.2172/CHNY/2019 & /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 SMT. KALAVATHI RAJENDRAN 135, DEVANGA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD R.S. PURAM COIMBATORE 641 002 VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, 63, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE 641 018 [PAN: BFGPR 2209A] ( ' /APPELLANT) ( ()' /RESPONDENT) ' * + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUBRAMANIAN TK, C.A ( )' * + /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KANNAN NARAYANAN, JCIT , * -. /DATE OF HEARING : 21.11.2019 /0& * -. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.11.2019 1 / O R D E R PER SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -2, COIMBATORE (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS CIT(A)) IN APPEAL NO.157/1 7-18 DATED 27.05.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. ITA NO.2172/CHNY/2019 :- 2 -: 2. SHRI SUBRAMANIAN TK, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI KANNAN NARAYANAN, JCIT REP RESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD FOUR PORTIONS OF LAND IN DAMINEDU , TIRUCHANOOR GROUP, TIRUPATHI. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT WHEN FILING TH E RETURN, THE ASSESSEE HAD REPORTED A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS FROM THE SAME. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID LANDS SOLD WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE L ANDS SOLD WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND PROCEEDED TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS BY ADOPTING THE GUIDELINE VALUE BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS U/S.50C OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS CIT(A)). IT WAS A SUBMI SSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBJECTED TO THE APPLICATION OF THE GUIDELINE VALUE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CALLED FOR A VALUATION REPORT FROM THE DVO, TIR UPATI ON 18.12.2017, WHICH IS THE DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSE D. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUC ED A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, DAMINEDU VILLAGE, WHER EIN IT WAS SPECIFIED THAT THE SAID LANDS SOLD TO THE EXTENT OF 5.39 ACRES WAS LOCATED IN TIRUPATI RURAL AREA AND WAS NEARLY SEVEN KILOMETERS FROM THE TIRUPATI M UNICIPAL CORPORATION. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO DID NOT CONSIDER THE CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS A PRA YER THAT THE ISSUES IN THE ITA NO.2172/CHNY/2019 :- 3 -: APPEAL BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR DE NOVO ADJUDICATION AND TO CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT THE LANDS WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AS ALSO THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER. IT WAS FAIRLY ADMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE T HAT THE DVOS REPORT IS ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE SAME IS NOT YET BEEN R ECEIVED. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TH E LEARNED CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 6. THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOW S THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THA T THE LANDS SOLD WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS. IT COULD BE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HERSELF DISCLOSED THE LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAINS AND THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WOULD NO M ORE SURVIVE. HERE, IT MUST BE APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUST A TAX AGGREGATOR. IF ANY PARTICULAR AMOUNT IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED, YES, THE S AME MUST BE TAXED IN ITS CORRECT FORM. JUST BECAUSE THERE IS AN ERROR FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE SAID ERROR IS TO BE HELD IN DETRIMENT TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS BEING SO, THE ISSUES OF THIS APPEAL ARE RESTOR ED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GRANT TH E ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE HER CLAIM TH AT THE LANDS SOLD WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL AL SO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE ITA NO.2172/CHNY/2019 :- 4 -: DVOS REPORT WHICH HAS BEEN CALLED FOR BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER VIDE HIS REQUEST DATED 18.12.2017. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THE CLAIM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT DENOVO . 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2019 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( '!# $ ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) . /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2! /DATED: 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2019 . IA, SR. P.S 1 * (-34 54&- /COPY TO: 1. ' /APPELLANT 2. ()' /RESPONDENT 3. , 6- ( )/CIT(A) 4. , 6- /CIT 5. 4 78 (- /DR 6. 89 : /GF