T. Mohammed Moin, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2634/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7935 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 31-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K.N.DHANDAPANI
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

, A/ SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A/SMC BENCH, CHENNAI . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2634 /MDS./2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08) T.MOHAMED MOIN , C/O METRO LEATHERS, 1 ST FLOOR, NO.7/1, ARUNACHALA LANE, PERIAMET, CHENNAI -3. VS. THE ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 5, CHENNAI -6. PAN AADPM 1700 E ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) ! ' # / APPELLANT BY : MR.G.SITHARAMAN,C.A $% ! ' # / RESPONDENT BY : MR.K.N.DHANDAPANI,JCIT, D.R & ' ' ( ) / DATE OF HEARING : 31.01.2017 *+ ' ( ) /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.02.2017 / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGGRIEVED B Y THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-5, CHENNA I DATED 20.07.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. ITA NO. 2634/MDS/2016 2 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEA L IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ADOPTING THE SALE PRICE AT ` 1,01,42,000/-, APPLYING SEC.50C OF THE ACT WITHOUT REFERRING TO TH E VALUATION OFFICER U/S.50C(2) OF THE ACT. 3. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE SO LD A PROPERTY SITUATED AT VARADHA MUTHAIAPPAN STREET, PEDDUNAICKE NPET, GEORGE TOWN, MADRAS AT GUIDELINE VALUE OF ` 1,01,42,000/- AND LATER THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS FIXED BY THE STAMP VALUAT ION AUTHORITY AT ` 77,65,200/- AND THE STAMP DUTY OF ` 6,21,216/- WAS COLLECTED @ 8% ON ` 77,65,200/-. LATER, THE AO CONSIDERED THE GUIDELIN E VALUE OF ` 77,65,200/- FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS U/S.50 C(1) OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.A.R IS THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER U/S.50C(2) OF THE A CT AND THE AO ADOPTING THE GUIDELINE VALUE WITHOUT REFER TO THE V ALUATION OFFICER IS INAPPROPRIATE. THE LD.D.R RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LO WER AUTHORITIES. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR OPINION, SEC.50C(2) REQUIRES THE AO TO REFER THE MATTER THE VALUATION OFFICER TO ASCERTAIN THE MARKET VALUE , WHEN THE ITA NO. 2634/MDS/2016 3 ASSESSEE REQUESTS FOR THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THIS, C ONSIDERING PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT, WE DI RECT THE AO TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER SO AS TO ASCERT AIN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BEFORE ADOPTING GUIDELINE VALUE U/S.50C(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORIT IES AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO ASCERTAIN THE VALUE OF PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 02 ND FEBRUARY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 02 ND FEBRUARY, 2017 . K S SUNDARAM. , ' $(-. /.( / COPY TO: 1 . ! / APPELLANT 3. & 0( () / CIT(A) 5. .3 4 $(5 / DR 2. $% ! / RESPONDENT 4. & 0( / CIT 6. 4 6 7 ' / GF