Mr.Anuj Madhukar Kumar, Bangalore V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 523/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4192 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K N DHANDAPANI
• Keywords: Fair market value

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 523 /BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 4 - 1 5 SHRI ANUJ MADHUKAR KUMAR, B 303, ESTEEM ROYAL, NIRGUNA MANDIR ROAD, S.T. BED, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560 047. PAN: ACOPK0033F VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTL. TAX), CIRCLE 1 (2), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.N. DHANDAPANI, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 1 3 .0 2 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 .0 2 .2019 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME I S DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-12, BANGALORE DATED 19.12.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS)-12, BENGALURU, DATED 19-12-2017 IS ILLEGA L, ARBITRARY AND OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. THE LEARNED OFFICER HAS FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THAT T HE CONTROVERSY IN THE CASES REFERRED TO BY THE LEARNED OFFICER RELATE S TO ADOPTION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION-WHETHER IT IS THE ACTUAL COST OF CO NSTRUCTION OR THE ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS THE CONTROVE RSY IN THE CASE COVERED UNDER ITA NO.35/BANG/2015 RELIED UPON BY TH E APPELLANT RELATES SQUARELY TO THE ADOPTION OF DEEMED CONSIDER ATION-WHETHER GUIDANCE VALUE OF THE LAND CEDED TO THE BUILDERS OR THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILT-UP AREA. THE LEARNED OFFICER HAS FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE THE ITAT HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED IN THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT AS REFERRED TO ABOVE THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO THE FMV OF THE LAND CEDED AND NOT TO THE COST OF CONSTR UCTION. THE LEARNED OFFICER HAS FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE APE X COURT HAS HELD IN ITA NO. 523/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 THE CASE OF CIT V VEGETABLES PRODUCTS LTD (88 ITR 1 92) THAT IF TWO REASONABLE CONSTRUCTIONS OF A TAXING PROVISIONS ARE POSSIBLE, THAT CONSTRUCTION WHICH FAVOURS THE ASSESSEE MUST BE ADO PTED. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE REQUESTS THAT IN VIEW OF WH AT IS STATED HEREIN AS ALSO OF WHAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING , THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED OFFICER, IMPUGNED HEREIN, MAY BE QUA SHED AND SET ASIDE. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, DELETE, MODIF Y OR AMEND ANY OF THEGROUNDS HEREIN MENTIONED AT THE TIME OF HEARING 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 11.06.2018 AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO ASSESSEE BY RPAD WHICH HAS N OT COME BACK UNSERVED AND HENCE, SERVICE OF NOTICE IS PRESUMED. ON THIS DATE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT ALSO BUT STILL THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNE D TO 14.08.2018 AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS AGAIN SENT TO ASSESSEE BY RPA D AT THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COL. 10 OF FORM NO. 36 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THIS DATE, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND HENCE, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 06.11.2018 AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS A GAIN SENT TO ASSESSEE AT THE SAME ADDRESS. ON THIS DATE ALSO, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 13.02.2019 AND NOTICE OF H EARING WAS AGAIN SENT TO ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON THE SAME ADDRESS. ON 13.02. 2019, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT AND HENCE, WE INFER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERE STED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. AS REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE ME NTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (ARUN KUMAR GARODI A) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 15 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. /MS/ ITA NO. 523/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGAL ORE.