Smt. C.R. Vijayakumari, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 372/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1181 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.372/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SMT. C.R. VIJAYAKUMARI, 4/192, ANNA ROAD, PALAVAKKAM, CHENNAI - 41. [PAN:ADGPV5425R] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (MEDIA CIRCLE) II, 121, UTHAMAR GANDHI SALAI, CHENNAI 600 034. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. DAS GUPTA, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 18.03.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.03.2013 ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VI, CHENNAI DA TED 25.11.2011 IN ITA NO. 570/10-11; IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 [IN SHORT THE ACT]. 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE DRAWS OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL AND ARGUES THAT THE CI T(A) HAS WRONGLY I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.372 372372 372/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 2 CONFIRMED THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND ALSO HE HAS ERRED IN A DOPTING MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 FOR INDEXATION AS ` .2.00 LAKHS PER GROUND AS AGAINST ` . 8.00 LAKHS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE PRAYS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE REVENUE HAS CHOSEN TO DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) UNDER CHALLENGE AND PRAYS FOR CONFIRMING THE SAME. 4. ADMITTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DERIVES INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND OTHER SOURCE S. SHE HAD NOT FILED HER RETURN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH PROMPTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT DATED 02.12.2009. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE RETURNED IN COME OF ` .17, 07,700/-. 5. IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNED A SSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD LAND AND BUILDING. THE AREA OF TH E PLOT IN QUESTION MEASURED 6678 SQ.FT. SHE CLAIMED COST OF ACQUISITIO N AS ON 01.04.1981 AS ` .5.00 LAKHS [PER ASSESSMENT ORDER INSTEAD OF ` .8.00 LAKHS STATED IN GROUND BEFORE US]. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SCRUTINY ASS ESSMENT CAME ACROSS TWO SALES DEEDS REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REG ISTRAR IN THE YEAR 1980 AND 1981. IN THE LIGHT THEREOF, HE ADOPTED VALUE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION AS ` . 1.00 LAKH PER GROUND AND COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.372 372372 372/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 3 ` .1,17,53,441/- IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12. 2010 AND ADDED THE COMMISSION PAYMENT OF ` .1.60 LAKHS AND COST OF IMPROVEMENT AS ` .12,16,250/-. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL. WE FI ND FROM THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE AFO RESAID ADDITIONS IN TOTO EXCEPT THAT OF CAPITAL GAINS WHICH HAS ONLY BEEN MO DIFIED IN PART. IN OTHER WORDS, BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY AND OTHER EVIDENCE, HE HAS ENHANCED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FROM ` .1.00 LAKH PER GROUND [AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER] TO ` .2.00 LAKHS PER GROUND. THE ASSESSEES GROUND CHALLENGING LEGALITY OF 148 NOTIC E HAS BEEN REJECTED BY OBSERVING THAT SINCE SHE HAD NOT DISCLOSED INCOME I N QUESTION, IT WAS A FIT CASE FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 14 7 OF THE ACT. IN THIS BACKDROP OF FACTS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L AND CHALLENGES 148 NOTICE IN QUESTION AS WELL AS PRAYS THAT THE VA LUE OF THE PROPERTY IS LIABLE TO BE TAKEN AS ` .8.00 LAKHS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE A ND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND CIT(A)S ORDER. ADMITTEDLY, ON MERITS, THE ASSESSEES ONLY GROUND IS THAT THE VALUE OF THE PLOT IS ` . 8.00 LAKHS PER GROUND IN THE YEAR 1981. HOWEVER, IT TRANSPIRES FROM CIT(A)S ORD ER THAT IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, HER CONTENTION WAS THAT THE VALUE WAS ` .5.00 LAKHS PER GROUND AS IN 1981. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT TAKE NO TICE OF ASSESSEES PLEA I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.372 372372 372/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 4 TERMING THE VALUE AS ` . 8.00 LAKHS PER GROUND AND PROCEED TO TREAT THE PLEADED VALUE AS ` .5.00 LAKHS PER GROUND. 8. AS FAR AS ASSESSEES PLEA THAT THE CIT(A) HAS WR ONGLY TAKEN THE VALUE OF THE PLOT AS RS. 2.00 LAKHS PER GROUND IS CONCERN ED, WE FIND THAT HER CONTENTION AFORESAID IS, LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED IN P ART. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE CIT(A) IS S ITUATED IN THE PRIME COMMERCIAL LOCALITY OF T. NAGAR, CHENNAI I.E. AN AR EA HAVING ENORMOUS COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL SINCE LONG. APART FROM THE SAL E DEED RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS (SU PRA), THE REVENUE HAS NO OTHER EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. IT IS A TRITE PR EPOSITION OF THE LAW THAT THE SALE DEED ONLY REPRESENT THE MINIMUM GUIDELINE VALU E WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT FORM THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT MATTE R OF THE TRANSFER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE B Y TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAS IN THE YEAR 1981 IS LIABLE TO BE ENHAN CED TO ` .4.00 LAKHS PER GROUND FROM ` .2.00 LAKHS PER GROUND ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A). ACCOR DINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE CAPIT AL GAINS AND PASS CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER. 9. COMING TO ASSESSEES CONTENTION CHALLENGING LEGA LITY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, WE FIND NO REASON TO DIFF ER WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HOLDING THAT SINCE SHE HAD NOT FILED HER RE TURN, AFORESAID NOTICE WAS I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.372 372372 372/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 5 NECESSITATED. THEREFORE, WE REJECT THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE GROUND. 10. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS PARTLY AC CEPTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 21 ST OF MARCH, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE - PRESIDENT (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 21.03.2013 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.