Lakshmi Ramachandran, Kolkata V. ACIT, Cir. 29, Kolkata

ITA 576/KOL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9975 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Assessment record; Capital Gains
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH SMC KOLKATA SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO.576/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 LAKSHMI RAMACHANDRAN SRIRAMNIVAS, 1 ST FLOOR, 162/D/662 LAKE GARDENS, KOLKATA-700 045 [ PAN NO.ADKPR 5697 M ] / V/S . ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 29, AAYAKAR BHAVAN DAKSHIN, 2, GARIAHAT ROAD (SOUTH), 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-68 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.577/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 BHANUMATHI NATARAJAN IYER SRIRAMNIVAS 1 ST FLOOR, 162/D/662 LAKE GARDENS, KOLKATA-700 045 [ PAN NO.ABTPI 7168 R ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-29(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN DAKSHIN, 2 GARIAHAT ROAD (SOUTH) 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-68 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING /BY ASSESSEE NONE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI JAYANTA KHANRA, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 08-02-2021 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08-02-2021 /O R D E R THE CAPTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 21.09.2020 & 24.09.2020 OF TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ITA NOS. 576-577/KOL/20 A.Y 2015- 16 LAKSHMIS RAMACHANDRAN VS. ACIT, CIR-29 KOL BHANUMATHI N. IYER VS. ITO WD-29(1), KOL. PAGE 2 (APPEALS)-8, KOLKATA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS C IT(A)]. SINCE ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS IDENTICAL, HENCE, THESE APPEALS ARE TAKEN TOGETHER FOR HEARING AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH THE COMMON ORDER. 2. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEES DESPITE NOTICE OF HEARING. A PERUSAL OF THE CASE FILES REVEAL THAT EVEN NO ONE HAD APPEA RED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE MATTER IS DISPOSED OF ON MERITS A FTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE CASE FILES. A PERUSAL OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) REVEALS THAT THE SOLE ISSUE RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS RELATING TO THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOL D BY THE APPELLANTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SAID SALE OF PRO PERTY. THE FACTS FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY ARE TAKEN FROM ITA NO.576/K OL/2020. 3. THE APPELLANTS ARE SISTERS. BOTH THE ASSESSEES O WNED A JOINT PROPERTY WHICH WAS SOLD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.52 LAKH AND EACH OF THE ASSESSEE GOT 50% SHARE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS. AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION, THE REG ISTERING AUTHORITY HAD PUT THE PRICE AT RS.87,55,000/-. THEREAFTER THE APPELLANT AT THEIR O WN HAD GOT A VALUATION DONE FROM THE REGISTERED VALUER WHO ESTIMATED THE VALUE AT RS .65,22,000/-. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY OFFERED CAPITAL GAINS AS PER THEIR HALF SHARES TAKING THE ABOVE VALUATION. THEREAFTER THE INCOME OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES WAS ASS ESSED ACCORDINGLY. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEES CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GOT DONE ANOTHER VALUATION U/S 50C OF THE ACT AND OBTAI NED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THE VALUE OF RS.6 5,22,000/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS THEREFORE, CONTEN DED THAT THE LESSER VALUE BE TAKEN FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSID ERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEES AND OBSERVED AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED GET ENTIRE ISSUE AND FIND THAT THIS CLAIM CANNOT BE ALLOWED DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS. FIRST AND FOREMOST IS THAT T HE ONLY VALUATION THAT FORMS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS THE VALUATION PROVIDED BY THE A PPELLANT HIMSELF. THERE IS NOT EVEN THE MEREST OF A WHISPER OF ANY ALTERNATIVE VALUATION OR THAT THIS ISSUE HAD EVER BEEN RAISED BEFORE THE AO. SINCE THE INSTANT APPEAL CAN MEANT OUT OF O NLY THEISM ORDER AND NOT THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS PER SE , THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE CIT(A) ASSUMING JURIS DICTION OVER SUCH A MATTER. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE INSTANT VALUATION GI VEN BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF IS A PART OF THE ITA NOS. 576-577/KOL/20 A.Y 2015- 16 LAKSHMIS RAMACHANDRAN VS. ACIT, CIR-29 KOL BHANUMATHI N. IYER VS. ITO WD-29(1), KOL. PAGE 3 RETURN OF INCOME, FROM WHICH THE AO HAS PICKED THE FIGURE FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS. IT IS NOT WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO INTERFERE WITH THIS SINCE IT DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD.DR, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEES IN THESE APPEALS HAVE THEMSELVES GOT THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY DONE AND OFFERED THE CAPI TAL GAINS AS PER THEIR OWN VALUATION WHICH EVEN WAS LESSER THAT THE COLLECTOR / REGISTER ING AUTHORITY VALUATION AT WHICH THE STAMP DUTY WAS LEVIED. IN VIEW OF THIS, I DO NOT FI ND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE HEREBY DISMISSED . A COPY OF THE INSTANT COMMON ORDER BE PLACED IN THE RESPECTIVE CASE FILES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON MONDAY, 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2021 . SD/- (SANJAY GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBE R *DKP/SR.PS % - 08/02/2021 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /ASSESSEE-LAKSHMI RAMACHANDRAN /BHANUMATHI NATARAJA N IYER SRIRAMNIVAS 1 ST FLOOR, 162/D/662 LAKE GARDENS, KOLKATAA-45 2. /REVENUE-ACIT, CIR-29 / ITO WD-29(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN DAKSHIN, 2 GARIAHAT RD. (SOUTH), 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-68 3. ' ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) - / CIT (A) 5. * --' , ' / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. / / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , ',