DCIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. T.N.K.Govindaraju Chetty & Co. Ltd., CHENNAI

MA 156/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7143 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHA JI P JACOB SRDR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER .. M.P. NO. 156/MDS/2011 (IN W.T.A. NO.13/MDS/2008) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1988-89 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MEDIA CIRCLE II, CHENNAI 600 034. (PETITIONER) V. M/S T.N.K. GOVINDARAJU CHETTY & CO. LTD., 48, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 600 034. PAN : AAACT1818Q (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, SR-DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAROJK UMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 07.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.10.2011 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THIS TRIBUNAL APPLIED SCHEDULE III VALUATION OF WEALTH-TAX ACT WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. AS PER THE REVENUE, SCHEDULE III VALUATION WAS APPLICA BLE ONLY FROM M.P. NO. 156/MDS/11 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90 AND NOT FOR THE IMPUGNED AS SESSMENT YEAR 1988-89. 2. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP, LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT PRIOR TO 1.4.1989, SECTION 7 OF WEALTH TAX ACT PROVIDED THAT AN A.O. COULD FIX THE VALUE OF A PROPERTY AS PER PREVAILING MARKET CO NDITION IN THE LOCALITY. AS PER THE LEARNED D.R., THE A.O. HAD FO LLOWED THE SAME VALUE AS WAS FIXED BY HIM FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1984- 85 AFTER CONSIDERING THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE THEATRE COMPLEX AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE LOCATION OF THE AR EA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS SITUATED. HENCE, ACCORDING TO HIM, TH ERE WAS NO ARBITRARY IN THE FIXATION OF VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. 3. PER CONTRA, LEARNED A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL C ONTENTIONS. THIS TRIBUNAL, OF COURSE, HAD CONSIDERED SCHEDULE I II VALUATION AS RELEVANT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89 B ASED ON THE STIPULATION IN SECTION 7 OF WEALTH-TAX ACT. NEVERT HELESS, AT PARA 6 OF ITS ORDER, IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY NOTED BY THE TR IBUNAL THAT THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW HOW THE SUM OF ` 2.50 CRORES CONSIDERED AS THE VALUE OF THE THEATRE WAS ARRIVED AT IN THE E ARLIER YEARS. IT WAS M.P. NO. 156/MDS/11 3 ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASPECT OF VALUATION WAS NEVER C ONSIDERED IN THE EARLIER APPEALS. EVEN IF SCHEDULE III VALUATION, I S CONSIDERED AS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, SUCH V ALUATION BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED IN THE SAID SCHEDULE W OULD NOT, IN ANY CASE, CAUSE ANY PREJUDICE TO THE INTERESTS OF REVEN UE SINCE THE METHODOLOGY PRESCRIBED THEREIN IS BASED ON JUST AND EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT ON RECORD WARRANTING INTERFERENCE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14 TH OCTOBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 14 TH OCTOBER, 2011. KRI. COPY TO: PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/D.R./GUA RD FILE