A.Jagannathan, Coimbatore V. ITO, Coimbatore

MA 33/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1803 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGERI
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Principle of natural justice; Fair market value; Valuation report

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO. 33/MDS/2014 ( IN ITA NO. 1877/MDS/2013 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI A.JAGANNATHAN, NO.50A, PALANISAMY ST., NO.2, SAIBABA COLONY, K.K.PUDUR, COIMBATORE-641 038 [PAN: ADAPJ 9812 G] (PETITIONER) VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-II(5), COIMBATORE (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI K.BALASUBRAMANIAN , ADV RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.N.BETGERI , J CIT DATE OF HEARING : 02-05-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02-05-2014 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PETITION FOR RECALLING OF O RDER DT. 28-01-2014 IN THE AFORESAID APPEAL RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10. IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAD IMP UGNED THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE OF DETERMINATION OF LONG TERM M.P. NO. 33/MDS/2014 :- 2 -: CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SALE OF PROPERTY. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 2. IN THE PRESENT PETITION, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLEGE D MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL RESULTING IN MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. THE ERROR POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORDER IS A S UNDER: 2.IN PARA 8 OF THE ORDER THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT: THE LD.AR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW ANY INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE ITAT AR OF THE APPELLANT SUBM ITTED A) INVOKING OF SECTION 50C(2) VIDE GROUND TAKEN B EFORE CIT(A) IN PARA 4 PAGE 2 OF APPELLATE ORDER 9LAST SE NTENCE). B) COPY OF VALUATION REPORT DATED 27-12-2011 OF DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER, COIMBATORE WHEREIN A LAND RATE OF 213.40/SFT WAS ADOPTED AS ON 1-4-1981. 3.WITH REGARD TO SUBMISSION IN (A) ABOVE HONBLE BE NCH DECIDED NOT TO REFER THE MATTER BACK TO THE DEPARTM ENT AT THIS DISTANCE OF TIME AND FOR (B) ABOVE IT WAS PRONOUNCE D THAT A REASONABLE RATE WILL BE ADOPTED BECAUSE IT WAS BROU GHT TO HONBLE BENCH NOTICE THAT PER SFT LAND RATE AS ON 1 .4.1981 ADOPTED FOR GANAPATHIPURAM SITE BY APPELLANT WAS 275/SFT M.P. NO. 33/MDS/2014 :- 3 -: BY A/O 0.92/SFT BY JCIT 22.96/SFT BY CIT(A) 45.92/SFT BY DVO 213.40/SFT VIDE VALUATION REPORT FILED BEFORE BENCH THE ABOVE RATES WERE NOTED BY THE HONBLE BENCH DUR ING THE COURSE OF HEARING. SIMILAR RATES FOR KALINGA ST., LAND WAS ALSO MENTIO NED (BUT NOT NOTED BY THE HONBLE BENCH) 4.THE PETITIONER, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS T HAT THERE IS AN APPARENT CONTRADICTION IN THE FINDINGS/CONCLUSIO N OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL REPRODUCED ABOVE, WHICH HAS LED TO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE VIZ., NOT ESTIMATING A REASO NABLE FMV OF BOTH THE ABOVE LANDS AS ON 1.4.1981. THIS IS ALL T HE MORE SO FOR THE REASON THAT THE ITOP II(4) COIMBATORE REFER RED THE MATTER OF ASCERTAINING THE FMV AS ON 1.4.1981 TO DV O [VIDE VALUATION REPORT CITED SUPRA] WHILE THE ITO II(5) C OIMBATORE, WHOSE ASST. ORDER WAS APPEALED AGAINST BEFORE HONB LE ITAT, PREFERRED TO ADOPT GUIDE LINE VALUE OF SRO WHICH IS A CLEAR CASE OF DISCRIMINATION AND AGAINST NATURAL JUSTICE . 3. THE DR REPRESENTING THE REVENUE HAS OPPOSED THE PETITION FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED TH T THERE IS NO ERROR AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL IS SPEAKING AND JUSTIFIED. M.P. NO. 33/MDS/2014 :- 4 -: 4. BOTH SIDES HEARD. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPLICATI ON HAS STATED THAT THE BENCH HAD PRONOUNCED THAT A REASONA BLE RATE WILL BE ADOPTED. A PERUSAL OF THE CASE FILE SHOWS THAT THE ORDER IN THE APPEAL WAS NOT PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IMMEDIA TELY AFTER HEARING OF THE CASE. THE ORDER IN THE APPEAL WAS P RONOUNCED ON 28-01-2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ON IRRESPONSIBLE AND WRONG STATEMENT IN HIS PETITION. THE ORDER IN THE APPEAL HAS BEEN PASSED AFTER TAKIN G INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENT ATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AS WELL AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMAN ATING FROM THE RECORDS. IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF FMV ADOPTED BY H IM BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CIT(APPEALS) AFTER CONS IDERING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY INCREASED THE FMV OF THE P ROPERTY AT GANDHIPURAM FROM ` 10,000/- TO ` 20,000/- PER - CENT AND FOR LAND SITUATED AT KALINGA STREET FROM ` 20,000/- TO ` 30,000/- PER CENT. THE BENCH HAS UPHELD THE FAIR AND REASONABLE VIEW T AKEN BY THE CIT(APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY NEW EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS. M.P. NO. 33/MDS/2014 :- 5 -: 5. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE T O SHOW ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FORCING US TO RE CALL THE SAME. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IN THE GARB OF MISTAKE IN ORDER, IS IN FACT SEEKING REVIEW, WHICH IS NOT PERM ISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF MERIT. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON FRIDAY, THE 02 ND MAY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) (VIK AS AWASTHY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 02 ND MAY, 2014 TNMM COPY TO: (1) PETITIONER (4) CIT(A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.