S.Natarajan, CHENNAI V. DCIT, Dindigul

MA 281/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5760 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2018
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R KUMAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER M .P.NO . 281 / CHNY /2017 [IN I.T.A.NO. 621 / CHNY /20 1 7 ] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 201 3 - 1 4 S. NATARAJAN, NO. 47, ASHOK NAGAR, DINDIGUL 624 001 [PAN: AACHS4176B] VS. THE D EPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1 , DINDIGUL 624 002 ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR. R. KUMAR, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : MR. AR.V. SREENIVASAN , J CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 09.03.2018 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 09.03 .201 8 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 621 /CHNY/201 7 DATED 21 .0 8 .2017 HAD EXPRESSED W ITH ITS INTENTION TO REMIT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION DURING THE TIME OF HEARING, BUT, THE APPEAL WAS EVENTUALLY DISMISSED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBU NAL M .P. NO . 281 / CHNY/2017 2 HAD EXPRESSED ITS INTENTION TO REMIT THE QUES T ION ARISING ON VALUATION OF PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE LD. AR, THERE WAS PECULIAR NEGATIVE INDICATOR POINTED OUT BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING AND IT WAS FOR THIS REASON THAT THE MATTER WAS REQUIRED TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WARRANTING INTERFERENCE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENT IONS AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. WHAT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 6 OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS FROM SALE OF LAND AND BUILDING AT 173, EAST CAR STREET, DINDIGUL. THE SALE PRICE AS PER REGISTERED DOCUMENT NUMBER 557/2013 WAS .77,47,000/ - . HOWEVER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY, THE VALUE IS MENTIONED AT .1,29,13,300/ - IN THE DOCUMENT ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE ADMITTED THE SALE PRICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAINS AT .1,29,13,300/ - AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, HE HA S ADMITTED ONLY .77,47,000/ - AS SALE PRICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAINS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BY FILING REGISTERED VALUER S REPORT, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT INCREASED THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY MORE THAN THREE TIMES OF THE MARKET VALUE. SINCE THE STAMP VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB - REGISTRAR OFFICE HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER (STAMPS), THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED THE CASE TO THE VALUATION CELL TO FIX MARK ET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER MAKING ENQUIRIES AND PERSONALLY M .P. NO . 281 / CHNY/2017 3 INSPECTING THE SITE, THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER FIXED THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH COMES TO .1,65,27,360/ - . IT WAS THE STAND OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE INCOME TAX ACT TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO ACCEPT THE VALUATION REPORT OF A REGISTERED VALUER. SINCE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL V ALUATION OFFICER AT .1,65,27,360/ - , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE GUIDELINE VALUE AS FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE SRO IS VERY HIGH SINCE THE LAND SOLD WA S VACANT LAND SITUATED IN BETWEEN MUNICIPAL LANE AND EAST CAR STREET. THE SHAPE OF LAND IS OBLONG SHAPE WITH FRONT IDE IS 32 ON THE EAST CAR STREET AND 25 3 ON THE OTHER MUNICIPAL LANE SIDE HAVING DEPTH OF 112 3 (AVERAGE) THE PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH HAVE TW O OPEN SIDE ONE SIDE THAT ON THE MUNICIPAL LANE CANNOT BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE SINCE ON THAT SIDE IT IS MEANT FOR DUMPING GARBAGE OF THAT AREA AND FOR COLLECTION BY THE MUNICIPALITY FOR THE DISPOSAL. HAVING REGARD TO THE AFORESAID PECULIAR NEGATIVE INDICATORS, THE SALE PRICE ADMITTED IS CORRECT AND FAIR AND SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. UNDER THE ABOVE PECULIAR LAND SHAPE OF THE ASSESSEE S PROPERTY, WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS VERY HIGH COMPARED TO MARKET VA LUE, HE SHOULD APPROACHED THE APPROPRIATE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN APPEAL TO DETERMINE OR FIX THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERS THE MATTER TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION CELL. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE HIGHER FORUM, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO AT .1,65,27,360/ - IS HIGHER THAN THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY TA KEN THE STAMP DUTY VALUE AT .1,29,13,300/ - AS MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT ITSELF AS FAIR MARKET VALUE TO DETERMINE THE CAPITAL GAINS. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY INVOKED SECT ION 50C OF THE ACT AND ADOPTED THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4. THE ARG UMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CAPTURED AT PARA 4 AND READS AS UNDER: 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND CHALLENGED THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF PROPERTY CANNOT BE HELD AS DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION, WHICH M .P. NO . 281 / CHNY/2017 4 IS MEANT FOR STAMP DUTY AND CONTENDED THAT THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE TREATED AS ORIGINAL SALE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS VERY HIGH THAT OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AND THEREFORE, HE PRAYED FOR DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD EXPRESSED ITS INTENTION TO REMIT THE I SSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH. THE TRIBUNAL HAD ADJUDICATED THE MATTER AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACETS OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MP FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPE N COURT ON 09 TH MARCH, 201 8 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 09.03 . 201 8 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.