ACIT, CHENNAI V. Smt. Gowri, CHENNAI

ITA 483/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61403 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETERI
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O. K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NO.483 /MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I(2), CHENNAI. V. SMT. GOWRI, L/H TO LATE S. SHANMUGAM, 5/15, BLUE BEACH ROAD, NEELANGARAI, CHENNAI-6-00 041. (PAN : AANPS0684B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.N. BETERI, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 17 .07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.07.2 012 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09-12-2011 PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS)-I, CHEN NAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE. THERE WAS A SEARCH ITA NO.483/MDS/2012 2 ACTION CARRIED OUT IN HIS RESIDENCE ON 13-2-2009. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SOME MATERIAL RELATING TO INVESTME NT AND PROPERTIES AT VARIOUS PLACES WERE SEIZED AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AT NIL ANGARAI AND VALASARAVAKKAM AND A COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT ANNA NA GAR, CHENNAI. THE VALUATION OF THESE PROPERTIES WAS REF ERRED TO THE DVO U/S. 142A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE DV O ARRIVED AT A DIFFERENCE OF ` 60,50,202/-, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN BELOW : DETAILS OF DISCOUNTED VALUE ASSESSEES DIFFERENCE PROPERTY VALUE OF BUILDING SUIBMISSION 15,14 TH MAIN ROAD, 3,12,01,302 3,04,35,182 7,66,120 ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI-40 222, 6 TH STREET, 53,73,900 32,13,718 21,60 ,182 JANAKI NAGAR EXTN.., VALASARAVAKKAM, CHENNAI-87. 5/15, BLUE BEACH ROAD, 1,33,34,400 1,02,10,500 31,23,90 0 NEELANGARAI, CHENAI-41. 60,50,202 ___________________________________________________ ________________________ THE AO BY CONSIDERING THE DVOS REPORT HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 60,50,202/-. 3. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.483/MDS/2012 3 HIMSELF HAS SUPERVISED THE CONSTRUCTION AND THEREFO RE 7.5% TOWARDS SELF-SUPERVISION HAS TO BE GIVEN IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DVO ESTIMATED THE DIFFERENCE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CPWD RATES. THEREFO RE, AN ADDITIONAL DISCOUNT OF 15% HAS TO BE GIVEN TO THE A SSESSEE. FURTHER HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF G.B. GAUTHAM V. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (199 ITR 530) AND THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF A.ABDUL RAHIM V. ITO (258 I TR 714). THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL AND ALSO THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY HIM HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL DIS COUNT OF 15% TOWARDS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CPWD RATES AND PWD RATES APART FROM 7.5% TOWARDS SELF SUPERVISION IS REASONABLE AN D DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE FIRST PROPERTY, VIZ. AT ANNA NA GAR, 15% IN ADDITION TO 7.5% ALREADY GIVEN. FOR THE OTHER TWO PROPERTIES SINCE ALREADY 10% HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO A FURTHE R 12.5% IS TO BE ALLOWED. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED COUNSEL RE-ITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS WHICH HE HAD MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T(A). ITA NO.483/MDS/2012 4 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE AO. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED T HE RECORDS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE US IS WITH REGA RD TO THE ADDITIONAL DISCOUNT OF 15% AND 12% GIVEN TO THE ASS ESSEE TOWARDS THE DIFFERENCE IN CPWD RATES AND PWD RATES BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF G.B. GAUTHAM V. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (SUP RA) AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF A. ABDUL RAHIM V. ITO (SUPRA). WE FIND NO INFIR MITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE THEREFORE C ONFIRM HIS ORDER AND DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 30 TH OF JULY, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O. K. NARAYANAN) ( V.DURGA RAO ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 30 TH JULY, 2012. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE