R KARPAGAM, COIMBATORE V. ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

ITA 550/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1062 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Fair market value

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.550/CHNY/2018 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI R. KARPAGAM, 80/44, ANSARI STREET, RAM NAGAR, COIMBATORE 641 009. PAN : ARBPK 4307 N V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JCIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 16.08.2018 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.09.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -2, COIMBA TORE, DATED 28.09.2017 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 51 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPE AL BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR CO NDONATION OF 2 I.T.A. NO.550/CHNY/18 DELAY. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE AND THE LD. D.R. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR N OT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DETER MINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN TAX. 4. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 AS 4.5 PER SQ.FT. ON THE BASIS OF GUIDELINE VALUE FIXED BY THE SUB-RE GISTRAR. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO VALUED THE PROPERTY THROUGH A CHARTERED ENGINEER. THE CHARTER ED ENGINEER VALUED THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 AT 80/- PER SQ.FT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE VALUATION MADE BY THE CHART ERED ENGINEER WAS NOT DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER SIMPLY IGNORED THE VALUATION OF THE CHARTERED ENGIN EER AND ADOPTED THE GUIDELINE VALUE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER M ATERIAL, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE ADOPTED THE VALUATION MADE BY THE CHARTERED ENGINEER. 3 I.T.A. NO.550/CHNY/18 5. WE HEARD MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD. DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE ASSESSEE VALUED THE PROPE RTY THROUGH A REGISTERED VALUER / CHARTED ENGINEER WHO FIXED THE VALUATION AT 80 PER SQ.FT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE GU IDELINE VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 IS 4.50 PER SQ.FT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE GUIDELINE VALUE. THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUN D THAT 42.25 PER SQ.FT. BEING AN AVERAGE VALUE, HE ADOPTED THE S AME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REFERRED THE MATTER TO TH E DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. INSTEAD, SHE SIMPLY ADOPTED THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE SUB-REGISTRARS OFFICE. 6. GUIDELINE VALUE MAY NOT REPRESENT THE MARKET VAL UE OF THE PROPERTY. THE GUIDELINE VALUE IS ONLY FOR THE PURP OSE OF FINDING OUT THE MARKET VALUE TO LEVY STAMP DUTY AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENT. MARKET VALUE WOULD DEPEND UPON VARIOUS F ACTORS, SUCH AS LOCATION OF PROPERTY, EXTENT OF PROPERTY SOLD, A VAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES AROUND THE PROPERTY, PUBL IC ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY, AVAILABILITY OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, HOSPITAL, BUS STAND, AIRPORT, ETC. NEARBY TO THE LAND. THESE FACTORS NE ED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF FINDING OUT FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981. THE GUIDELINE VALUE IS ALSO ONE OF 4 I.T.A. NO.550/CHNY/18 THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED. UNFORTUNATELY, THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY ADOPTED THE GUIDELINE VALUE WITHOUT CONS IDERING THE ABOVE FACTORS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE FA IR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981. THE CIT(APPEALS) ADOPTED THE AVE RAGE VALUE BY PLACING HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF AHMEDABAD B ENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN AMBALAL SARABAI ENTERPRISES LTD. V. DCI T IN I.T.A. NOS.2602 & 2624/AHD/2012 DATED 11.04.2016. 7. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL WOULD HAVE SENT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO DECIDE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTORS REFERRED ABOVE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IS VERY SMALL. T HEREFORE, REMANDING BACK THE MATTER MAY NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE TO BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE. THEREFORE, ON ESTIMATE BASIS , TO SETTLE THE ISSUE ONCE FOR ALL AMICABLY, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF TH E CONSIDERED OPINION THAT 65 PER SQ.FT. WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. ACCO RDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE MODIFIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT FAIR MARKET VALUE AS O N 01.04.1981 AT 65 PER SQ.FT. AND THEREAFTER COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GA IN ACCORDINGLY. 5 I.T.A. NO.550/CHNY/18 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-2, COIMBATORE 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, COIMBATORE 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ( ; /GF.