Subash Subramanian, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 3406/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7368 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Value adopted by valuation officer; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value
• Section: 50C; 37

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , ! [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.3406/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-2008. SHRI. SUBASH SUBRAMANIAN NO.3/4, ARISIKARAN STREET, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600 004. [PAN EZJPS 7395C] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) CHENNAI ( '# / APPELLANT) ( $%'# /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. T. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 02-03-2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-03-2017 & / O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST AN ORDER DATED 18.10.2016 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)- 2, CHENNAI. ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ALTOGETHER RAISED TWELVE GROUNDS OF WHICH GROUNDS NO.1 & 12 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE NEEDI NG NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION ITA NO. 3406/MDS/2016 :- 2 -: 2. THROUGH ITS GROUNDS 2 & 3, ASSESSEE ASSAIL REOPENI NG DONE U/S.148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED WITHOUT A VALID REASON . HENCE, ACCORDING TO HIM, REOPENING WAS INVALID. 3. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WHAT I FIND IS THA T ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURN VOLUNTARILY. FIRST RETURN FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE WAS PURSUANT TO A NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 OF THE ACT ON 1 7.12.2013. THE SAID NOTICE WAS ISSUED SINCE ASSESSEE HAD ALONGWITH THREE OTHER CO- OWNERS SOLD LAND MEASURING 1 GROUND 1593 SQ.FT, AT NEW NO.76, OLD NO.24, MANDAVELI STREET, CHENNAI-28 ON 27.12.2006, BUT HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURN FOR THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM SUCH TRANSACTION. IN MY OPINION, ASSESSEE HAVING NOT FILED ANY RETURN VOLU NTARILY, THE PROCEEDINGS RESULTED ONLY IN A FIRST ASSESSMENT. T HEREFORE ASSESSEE S GROUND CHALLENGING THE REOPENING HAS NO MERITS. GRO UNDS 2 & 3 ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 3406/MDS/2016 :- 3 -: 5. VIDE ITS GROUNDS 4 TO 7, ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED ON T HE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT I16,84,76 0/- AGAINST I40,500/- DECLARED BY HIM. 6. AS MENTIONED EARLIER ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PROPERTY W ITH OTHER THREE CO-OWNERS ON 27.12.2006. ASSESSEE HAD DECLAR ED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF I 40,500/- IN THE RETURN FILED PU RSUANT TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 OF THE ACT. AS PER LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER SALE CONSIDERATION THOUGH MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED AS I10,00,000/-, THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS MUCH HIGHER AND S TAMP DUTY WAS ON SUCH HIGHER VALUE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS QUERIED O N IT, HIS REPLY WAS THAT THERE WAS A SUIT PENDING BEFORE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT FILED BY M/S. MYLAPORE GYMKHANA FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND HENCE THE SALE WAS UNDER DISTRESS. ASSESSEE AL SO REQUESTED LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE VALUATION TO THE DV O. DVO VIDE ITS REPORT DATED 24.03.2015 ESTIMATED FAIR MARKET VALU E AT I74,76,054/-. THEREAFTER LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WAS RECOMPUTED B Y THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON THE DVO REPORT, IN ACCOR DANCE WITH SEC. 50C (3) OF THE ACT. 1/4 TH SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE CAME TO I18,69,000/-, AND AFTER DEDUCTING INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION I1, 84,245/-, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WAS COMPUTED AT I16,84,755/-. ITA NO. 3406/MDS/2016 :- 4 -: 7. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ARGUMENT OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SALE CONSIDERATION COULD NOT BE TAKEN AT MARKE T VALUE SINCE THERE WAS A PENDING SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, VALUATION OFFICER DID NO T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PENDING SUIT WHILE DOING THE VALUATION. ASSESS EE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DETAILS OF THE CIVIL SUIT FILED BY M/S. MYLAPORE GYMKHANA CLUB. AS PER ASSESSEE, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD DIRECTED THE RESPONDENTS, WHICH INCLUDED ASSESSEE, TO INDICATE THE PENDENCY OF THE LITIGATION IN ALL THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND T HIS WAS A FACTOR WHICH COMPELLED ASSESSEE TO GO FOR A DISTRESS SALE . ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE SEC. 50C (1) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE APPLI ED ON A DISTRESS SALE. FOR THIS, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISIO N OF LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. HARI OM GUPTA (2016) 45 ITR (TRIB) 0137 . 8. HOWEVER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) W AS NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS. ACCORDING TO HIM , THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO WAS BASED ON A REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. OPINION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS THAT BY VI RTUE OF SEC. 50C(3) OF THE ACT, ONCE SUCH A REFERENCE WAS MADE, ON THE REQUEST OF ITA NO. 3406/MDS/2016 :- 5 -: THE ASSESSEE, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BOUND TO AD OPT THE VALUATION MADE BY THE DVO. FURTHER, AS PER LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PENDENCY OF THE SUIT WAS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED AND THE SUIT AS SUCH DID NOT AFFECT THE VALUE OF THE P ROPERTY, SINCE THE CONDITION STIPULATED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WAS ONLY TO INTIMATE THE PENDENCY OF THE LITIGATION TO THE PURCHASER. THUS, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADOPTED VALUE OF I18,69,000/- FOR THE PROPERTY CORRECTLY. 9. NOW BEFORE ME, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMI TTED THAT LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HARI OM GUPTA (SUPRA) HAD CLEARLY HELD THAT IN A DISTRESS SALE THE PROCEDURE MENTIONED IN SEC. 50C OF THE ACT COULD NEVER BE APPLIED. ACCORDING TO HI M, ASSESSEE WAS CONSTRAINED TO SELL THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT A RATE LOWER THAN THE MARKET VALUE DUE TO THE PENDING LITIGATION. HENCE TO SUBSTITUTE THE CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS ACTUALLY PAID BY THE BUYER TO THE SELLER WITH MARKET VALUE WOULD GIVE RISE TO FICTITIOUS INCOME. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE PRICE MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SALE DEE D ALONE COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR WORKING OUT CAPITAL GAINS. 10. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGL Y SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO. 3406/MDS/2016 :- 6 -: 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS TRUE THAT TH ERE WAS A PENDING LITIGATION ON THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS SOLD BY THE AS SESSEE. THIS WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER/DVO. HOWEVER, JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD NOT RESTRAINED ASSESS EE FROM ALIENATING OR DEALING WITH THE PROPERTY. WHAT IT DIRECTED WA S ONLY TO INDICATE THE PENDENCY OF LITIGATION IN ANY TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE PROPERTY. ASSESSEE HAD DURING THE COURSE OF THE VALUATION PR OCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. DVO, BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION, THE EXISTENCE O F THE LITIGATION IN THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY HIM. IT WAS AFTER CONSIDERING S UCH OBJECTIONS THAT DVO MADE THE VALUATION. RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2015 OF THE DVO IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER. HAVING CONSIDERED THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED ALL THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAVING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIALS GATHERED BY ME DURING THE PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY, I P ROPOSE TO ESTIMATE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTY OLD DOOR NO 24, NEW NO 76 ( NEW NO 58) MANDAVELI STREET, MYLAPORE CHENNAI 600004. FOR THE LAND MEASURING ONE GROUND AND 1593 SQ FEET SOLD VIDE DOC NO 3783/2006 AS ON 27.12.2006 IE RS 74,76,054/- . ACCORDINGLY 1/4THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IS WORKED OUT AS .18,69,OOO/- (RUPEES EIGHTEEN LAKHS SIXTY NINE THOUSAND ONLY)' ITA NO. 3406/MDS/2016 :- 7 -: THUS, THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO WAS AFTER CON SIDERING THE EFFECT OF THE PENDING LITIGATION. ASSESSEE THUS, W AS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT DVO HAD CONSID ERED ALL THE MATERIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE DETAIL S OF THE SUIT PENDING ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A LOOK AT SEC. 50(C) OF THE ACT WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUN DER:- 1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING A S A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEI NG LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN T HIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE 'STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY') FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFE R, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSE S OF SECTION 48, BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERA TION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (1), WHERE (A) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER ; (B) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY OTHER AUTHORITY, COURT OR THE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF TH E CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER AND WHERE ANY SUCH REF ERENCE IS MADE, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS (2), (3), (4), (5) AND (6) OF SECTION 16A, CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (1) AND S UB-SECTIONS (6) AND (7) OF SECTION 23A, SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECT ION 24, SECTION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEAL TH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957), SHALL, WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATI ONS, APPLY ITA NO. 3406/MDS/2016 :- 8 -: IN RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELA TION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB-S ECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THAT ACT. EXPLANATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, 'VALUATION OFFICER' SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE (R) OF SECTION 2 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT , 1957 (27 OF 1957). (3) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECT ION (2), WHERE THE VALUE ASCERTAINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) E XCEEDS THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AU THORITY REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1), THE VALUE SO ADOPTE D OR ASSESSED BY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE FU LL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER. SUB SECTION (3) TO SEC. 50C OF THE ACT CLEARLY MAND ATES ADOPTION OF THE VALUE FIXED BY THE DVO WHEN SUCH VALUE WAS LESS THAN WHAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR FIXING THE S TAMP VALUE. ADMITTEDLY, DVO HAD TAKEN FMV AT I74,76,054/- WHICH WAS LESS THAN THE VALUE OF I78,70,203/- ADOPTED BY THE REGISTRAT ION AUTHORITIES. COMING TO THE DECISION OF LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF HARI OM GUPTA (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, THE SALE WAS CONSIDERED AS DONE UND ER DISTRESS, SINCE ASSESSEE CONCERNED WAS NOT ABLE TO PAY DUES TO THE BANK WHERE THE PROPERTY WAS KEPT AS COLLATERAL SECURITY. IT DOES NOT LAY DOWN A LAW THAT IN ALL CASES WHERE THERE IS A LITIGATION IT WO ULD BE A DISTRESS SALE. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT LOWER AUTHORITI ES WERE JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING SEC. 50C OF THE ACT. I DO NOT FIND ANY REA SON TO INTERFERE WITH ITA NO. 3406/MDS/2016 :- 9 -: THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. GROUNDS 4 TO 7 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 12. VIDE ITS GROUNDS 8 TO 11, GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE ON THE ENHANCEMENT DONE BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS), BY RECOMPUTING THE COST OF ACQUISITION. 13. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT COST OF ACQUISITION WHICH WA S SOLD WAS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT I1,42,000/- (FOR 400 0 SQ.FT) BASED ON AN ESTIMATED VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981. AS PER LD. COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN THE PARTITION DEED DATED 28.07.1978, THROUGH WHICH THE PROPERTY CAME INTO OWNERSHIP OF T HE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH THREE OTHER PERSONS, THE VALUE WAS I35, 000/- FOR 6119 SQ.FT, WHICH TRANSLATED TO I22,880/- FOR 4000 SQ.F T. AS PER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE SRO, MYLA PORE HAD CONFIRMED THE GUIDELINE VALUE PER GROUND AT I22,00 0/- AS ON 01.04.1981. HE THEREFORE PROPOSED AN ENHANCEMENT O F LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS BY SUBSTITUTING THE VALUE PER GROUND ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH GUIDELINE VALUE OF I22,000/- PER GRO UND. 14. WHEN ASSESSEE WAS PUT ON NOTICE ON ABOVE PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT, IT SUBMITTED THAT SEC. 55A OF THE ACT AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO AMENDMENT, DID NOT GIVE ANY ROOM TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO ITA NO. 3406/MDS/2016 :- 10 -: VALUATION OFFICER, WHEN THE VALUE OF A PROPERLY C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HIGHER THAN THE FMV. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE VALUE ESTIMATED BY HIM, AS ON 01.04.1981 WAS HIGHER THAN THE FMV. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PUJA PRINTS 360 ITR 697. HOWEVER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT IMPRES SED. ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE WAS NO VALUATION DONE BY A VALUATION OFFICER FOR ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.19 81. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO HIM, WHAT WAS TO BE ADOPTED WAS THE GUIDELINE VALUE BASED ON GOVERNMENT RECORDS. HE HELD THAT SEC. 55A OF THE ACT HAD NO APPLICATION IN SUCH A SITUATION AND DIRECTED THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO APPLY THE GUIDELINE VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981, AT I 22,000/-, PER GROUND FOR ARRIVING AT THE COST OF ACQUISITION. 15. NOW BEFORE ME, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REITER ATED THE CONTENTIONS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ACCORDING TO HIM, PRIOR TO AMENDMEN T TO CLAUSE (A) TO SEC. 55A THROUGH FINANCE ACT, 2012 WHICH CAME INTO EFFECT FROM 01.07.2012, A REFERENCE COULD NOT BE MADE TO THE V ALUATION OFFICER WHEN THE VALUE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MORE THA N THE FMV. 16. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO. 3406/MDS/2016 :- 11 -: 17. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ASSESSEE HAD ADOPT ED COST AS ON 01.04.1981 AT I1,42,000/- FOR 4000 SQ.FT WHICH TRAN SLATED TO I85,200/- PER GROUND. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) HAD CONSIDERED THE GUIDELINE VALUE GIVEN BY SRO, MYLAPO RE WHICH GAVE A VALUE OF I22,000/- PER GROUND, AS ON 01.04.1981. L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD ALSO NOTED THE PARTITI ON DEED AT 28.07.1978 WHEREIN THE VALUE GIVEN WAS I22,880/- F OR 4000 SQ.FT WHICH TRANSLATED TO I13,728/- PER GROUND. CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ME IS THAT SEC.55A OF THE ACT HAD NO APPLICA TION WHERE THE VALUE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MORE THAN THE FMV , PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TO CLAUSE (A) TO SEC. 55A OF THE ACT THR OUGH FINANCE ACT, 2012. THERE CAN BE NO QUARREL ON THIS, BY VIRTUE OF JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PUJA PRINTS (SUPRA). HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE WAS NO REFERENC E MADE TO A VALUATION OFFICER BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OR L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) HAD TAKEN NOTE OF THE PARTITION DEED DATED 28.07. 1978 THROUGH WHICH ASSESSEE BECOME THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE REAFTER ADOPTED THE GUIDELINE VALUE FIXED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR T HE PROPERTY. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT LD. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT SEC. 55A OF THE ACT ITA NO. 3406/MDS/2016 :- 12 -: HAD NO APPLICATION. I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO IN TERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). G ROUND NOS. 8 TO 11 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH , 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED: 31 ST MARCH, 2017 KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF