V SUNDARAM, COIMBATORE V. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 1 (1), COIMBATORE

ITA 886/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2340 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: K RAGHU
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.886/CHNY/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) SHRI V. SUNDARAM, NO.441, BHARATHIYAR ROAD, PAPPANAICKENPALAYAM, COIMBATORE 641 018. VS THE ITO, NON-CORPORATE WARD 1(1), COIMBATORE PAN: AIJPS2708J ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. RAGHU, CA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 05.09.2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.10.2018 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, COIMBATORE, DATED 21.02.2018 IN C.NO.120(14)/263/PCIT- 1/CBE/2017-18 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE THAT IS THAT THE LD.PCIT HAS ERRED IN INVOKING THE 2 ITA NO.886/CHNY /2018 POWERS U/S.263 OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE LD.AO TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL EARNING INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND OTHER SOURCES E-FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON 26.09.2013 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,10,500/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 04.09.2014 IN ORDER TO VERIFY LOW CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED BY HIM. FINALLY ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT ON 16.02.2016 ACCEPTING THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY THE LD.PCIT INVOKED HIS POWERS U/S.263 OF THE ACT AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO WITH DIRECTIONS TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH BECAUSE HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD.AO HAD NOT ADOPTED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AT THE OUTSET THE LD.AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD.AO HAD ADOPTED THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY BEING RS.3,50,00,000/- AT THE TIME OF 3 ITA NO.886/CHNY /2018 EXECUTION OF SALE DEED. THE LD.AR ALSO PRODUCED THE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.PCIT HAD ERRONEOUSLY ADOPTED THE MARKET VALUE WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT I.E., AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.PCIT. THE LD.DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. FROM THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED PRODUCED BEFORE US IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY AT RS.3,50,00,000/- AND THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY HAS PAID THE REQUISITE FEES OF RS.3,50,100/-. THE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED AS CA NO.1911 OF 2013 DATED 27.03.2013 WITH THE SUB-REGISTRAR OF COIMBATORE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SURVEY NUMBER OF THE PROPERTY SOLD IS OLD TS NO.1/252 & NEW TS NO.1/420. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF DECLARED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD IN PARITY WITH THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT, THE NECESSITY OF INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT DOES NOT ARISE. THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE LD.AO IS IN ORDER. IN THIS SITUATION WE ARE OF 4 ITA NO.886/CHNY /2018 THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT INVOKING THE POWERS U/S.263 OF THE ACT BY THE LD.PCIT IS ERRONEOUS. HENCE, WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.PCIT AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 26 TH OCTOBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- /CHENNAI, /DATED 26 TH OCTOBER, 2018 RSR /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( ) /CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. /GF ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER