Kasu Anji Reddy , Ranga Reddy V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

ITA 686/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7658 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A.V. PAVAN KUMAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Period of limitation; Cost of acquisition; Time period of passing order; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L . P . SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) ITA NO. 686 /HYD/20 19 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 15 - 16 ) SHRI KASU ANJI REDDY, R.R. DISTRICT. PAN BXLPR 90627 ..APPELLANT. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(2), HYDERABAD. ..RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V. PAVAN KUMAR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ROHIT MA JUMDAR. (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING : 11.05 . 2021. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 .0 8 .2021. O R D E R PER SHRI S.S. GODARA, J.M. : THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASST. YEAR 2015 - 16 ARISES FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 12, HYDERABAD S ORDER DT. 8.2.20 19 PASSED IN CASE NO. 10220/2018 - 19 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 2 ITA NO. 686/HYD/2019 HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES . C ASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL : 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS ON 01/04/1981 BEFORE INDEXATION RS. AT RS. 3,82,600/[@ RS. 313.6/ - PER SQ. FT ] AND THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION THEREON AT RS. 39,28,175/ - AS ON 01/04/1981, WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 A T THE OPTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS DETERMINED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AT RS. 3,82,600/ - BEFORE INDEXATION AND AT RS. 39,28,175/ - AFTER INDEXATION BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE AFORESAID VALUATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPIT AL GAINS.' 3. BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE CIT(A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION READING AS UNDER : 3 ITA NO. 686/HYD/2019 4 ITA NO. 686/HYD/2019 5 ITA NO. 686/HYD/2019 6 ITA NO. 686/HYD/2019 7 ITA NO. 686/HYD/2019 4. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL CONTENTIONS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF CORRECTNESS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ESTIMATING THE ASSESSEE'S COS T ACQUISITION AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS.34.10 PER SQ. FT. AS AGAINST THAT CLAIMED OF RS .313.60 PER SQ. FT.; RESPECTIVELY. IT EMERGES DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO PLACE RELIANCE OF ITS REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT WHEREAS THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE GONE BY THE 8 ITA NO. 686/HYD/2019 SUB - REGISTRAR OFFICE RATE AT THE RELEVANT TIME . BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY INFORMED US THAT THE SAID RATE REMAIN UNCHANGED FOR ALMOST A PERIOD OF TWO DECADES FROM 19 76 TO 1995 . A ND ALSO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED HIS RELEVANT CAPITAL ASSET WAY BACK ON 27.11.1967 ( AGREEMENT FOLLOWED BY THE SALE DEED DT.13.6.1978) AND ALLEGED CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST FLOOR AS WELL AS AN ADDITIONAL ROOM ON GROUND FLOOR; RESPECTIVELY. WE FURTHER FIND THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FILE THE CORRESPONDING COMPARABLE C ASES QUA THE RELEVANT TIME SPAN OR AS ON 1.4.1981; AS THE CASE MAY BE. FACED WITH THIS SITUATION, WE QUOTE THUMS RULE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT AVERAGE OF THE ASSESSEE'S AND REVENUES RESPECTIVE RATE I.E. RS.313.60 AND RS.30. 10 PER SQ. FT.; RESPECTIVELY COM ING TO RS.175 PER SQ. FT. FOLLOWED BY THE NECESSARY COMMUTATION . IT IS FURTHER MADE CLEAR THAT OUR INSTANT ESTIMATION SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. 5. WE LASTLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ALTHOUGH THE IN STANT APPEALS ARE BEING DECIDED AFTER A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS 9 ITA NO. 686/HYD/2019 FROM THE DATE OF HEARING AS PER RULE 34(5) OF THE IT(AT) RULES 1963, THE SAME HOWEVER, DOES NOT APPLY IN THE COVID LOCKDOWN SITUATION AS PER HON'BLE APEX COURT'S RECENT DIRECTIONS DATED 27 - 04 - 2021 I N M.A.NO.665/2021 IN SM(W)C NO.3/2020 'IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION' MAKING IT CLEAR THAT IN SUCH CASES WHERE THE LIMITATION PERIOD (INCLUDING THAT PRESCRIBED FOR INSTITUTION AS WELL AS TERMINATION) SHALL STAND EXCLUDED FROM 14TH OF MARCH, 2021 TILL FURTHER ORDERS. 6 . THIS ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25TH AUGUST , 2021. SD/ - SD/ - (L .P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DT. 25 .0 8 .2021. * REDDY GP 10 ITA NO. 686/HYD/2019 COPY TO : 1. SRI KASU ANJI REDDY, 4 LH 1503, LANCO HILLS, MANIKONDA, HYDERABAD - 500 089. 2. ITO, WARD 8(2), HYDERABAD. 3. PR. C I T - 2 , HYDERABAD. 4. CIT(APPEALS) - 12, HYDERABAD. 5. DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PVT. SECRETARY, ITAT, HYDERABAD.