Smt Chhanda Roy Chowdhury, Kolkata V. JCIT, RG-2, HOOGHLY, Hooghly

ITA 919/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1365 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: V N PUROHIT
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.919/KOL/2015 SMT. CHHANDA ROY CHOWDHURY, AY 2008-09 , B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE .., /AND . ' # $% % , ) [BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, A M] / I.T.A NO. 919/KOL/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SMT. CHHANDA ROY CHOWDHURY (PAN: ANPPR1007E) VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-2, HOOGHLY. ( )* /APPELLANT ) ( +,)* / RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING 05.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06.10.2017 FOR THE APPELLANT/ )* SHRI V. N. PUROHIT, FCA FOR THE RESPONDENT/ +,)* SHRI SAURABH KUMAR, ADDL. CIT, DR / ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-6, KOLKATA DATED 23.03.2015 FOR AY 2008-09. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESS EE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF AO IN COMPUTING LONG TER M CAPITAL GAIN RELATING TO ASSESSEES SHARES OF 74.26% IN THE PROPERTY AT RS.1,92,59,340/ - BEFORE DEDUCTION OF INDEXED COST AND AFTER ARRIVING AT INDEXED COST OF PROPERTY AT RS.10 ,25,962/- AS ASSESSEES SHARE. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT WHILE DEALING WITH THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF OTHER CO-OWNER OF TH E SAME PROPERTY I.E. SHRI SANAT ROY CHOWDHURY IN ITA NO. 918/KOL/2015, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW VIDE ORDER DATED 03.03.2017, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE RELATES TO THE SALE OF LA ND BUT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE HELD THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD ALONG WITH THE BUILDING. THE LEARNED AR CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS THE OWNER OF THE LAND ONLY AND HE HAS NO CO NNECTION WITH THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED ON SUCH LAND. AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE BUILDING WAS CON STRUCTED BY THE CO-OWNER MR. SAMAR ROY CHOWDHURY. HOWEVER NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS SUBM ITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE H AS CLAIMED TO HAVE FILED SEVERAL DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHICH ARE PL ACED IN THE PAPER BOOKS. BESIDES THE LEARNED AR HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE VALUATION MADE B Y THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SECTION 50C OF T HE ACT. ON EXAMINATION OF THE ORDER OF 2 ITA NO.919/KOL/2015 SMT. CHHANDA ROY CHOWDHURY, AY 2008-09 LOWER AUTHORITIES WE FIND THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE BUILDING EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. HOWEVER IN OUR VIEW THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BEFORE REACHING TO THE CONCLUSION SHOULD HAVE CROSS VERIFIED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FROM MR. SAMAR ROY CHOWDHURY WHICH THEY FAILED TO DO SO. THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTI CE AND FAIR PLAY WE ARE INCLINED TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT HIS ARGU MENTS WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM. HENCE WE RESTORE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE STATED DISCUSSION. THUS THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SINCE THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US INVO LVES THE SAME PROPERTY, ACCORDING TO LD. AR, THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHO IS ALSO A CO-OWNER OF THE SAME PROPERTY, HE PRAYED BEFORE THE BENCH TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE ALSO BEFORE THE AO. THE LD. DR DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTIONS FOR SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS THE CO-OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH SHRI SANTAT ROY CHOWDHURY, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE US ARE ALSO IDENTICAL, THIS MATTER NE EDS TO BE DECIDED ALONG WITH THAT OF THE CO- OWNER SHRI SANTAT ROY CHOWDHURY. IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE, RELYING ON THE TRIBUNALS DECISION DATED 03.03.2017 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANAT ROY CHOWDHURY, CITED SUPRA, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO ADJUDICATE AFRESH AS PER THE DIRECTION GIVEN IN THE SAME CASE. APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH OCTOBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (DR. A. L. SAINI) (ABY. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :6 TH OCTOBER, 2017 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT SMT. CHHANDA ROY CHOWDHURY, C/O V. N . PUROHIT & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, DIAMOND CHAMBERS, UNIT III, 4 TH FLOOR, SUIT NO. 4G, 4, CHOWRINGHEE LANE, KOLKATA-700 016. 2 RESPONDENT JCIT, RANGE-2, HOOGHLY. 3. THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SR. PVT. SECY.,