P.Kisho Kumar, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 747/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96278 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! # $ , % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.747/MDS/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) MR. P.KISHO KUMAR, BLOCK 1, FLAT 6E CEEBROS, SHYAMALA GARDENS 136, ARCOT ROAD, SALIGRAMAM CHENNAI-600 093. VS. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1, CHENNAI. PAN:BCBPK6639R ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 1 ST OCTOBER, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 TH OCTOBER, 2015 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-16, CHENNA I DATED 27.01.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTA INING THE ADDITION OF ` 5,74,050/- BEING ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION. IT IS F URTHER CONTENDED THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED 2 ITA NO.747/MDS/2015 TO APPRECIATE THAT IN ANY EVENT THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 50C WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE WHICH VI TIATES THE ACTION IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION IN COMPUTING TAXA BLE INCOME. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPUTING THE ASSESS MENT NOTICED THAT IN THE COMPUTATION STATEMENT ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED SALE CONSIDERATION OF ` 1,00,53,000/-, WHEREAS IN THE DOCUMENT FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF SALE CONSIDERATION IT IS MENTIONED AS ` 1,06,27,050/-. THUS THE DIFFERENCE OF ` 5,74,050/- IS ADDED TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION AND ASSESSED THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCORDINGLY. ON APPEAL, THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION STAT ING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION FOR SHO WING LESSER SALE CONSIDERATION. 4. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE DIFFERENCE IN SALE PRICE OF ` 5,74,050/- IN COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS. HE SUBMITS THAT NO REASON HAS BEEN ASSIGNED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHY HE HAS ADDED THIS DIFFERENCE. REFERRING TO ASSESSMENT ORDER, HE SUBMITS THAT NOWHERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS MENTIONE D THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ADOPTING SECTION 5 0C AND IF 3 ITA NO.747/MDS/2015 HE IS ADOPTING 50C NOTHING WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C SHOULD NOT BE I NVOKED. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SIMPLY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTS THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY ADDED THE SALE CONSIDERATI ON AS REPORTED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION SAID TO HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SA LE DOCUMENT. HOWEVER, IT IS THE FINDING OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT AS PER THE SALE DEED, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER FOR THE PUR POSE OF STAMP AND REGISTRATION VALUE IS ` 2,12,54,100/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS NOWHERE MENTIONED THAT ASSE SSING OFFICER IS INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C O F THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS VERY CRYPTIC AND THERE IS N O REASON GIVEN AS TO WHY THE DIFFERENCE SHOULD BE ADDED. IN THE 4 ITA NO.747/MDS/2015 CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSING OF FICER SHALL REDO THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS, CLARIFICATIONS AND EXPL ANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE, IF ANY. THUS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO REDO THE ASSE SSMENT AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER PROVIDING ADEQ UATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( ( *+ ) ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ) - / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER * - / JUDICIAL MEMBER * /CHENNAI, / /DATED 30 TH OCTOBER, 2015 SOMU 12 32 /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 4 () /CIT(A) 4. 4 /CIT 5. 2 7 /DR 6. /GF .