Commissioner of Income tax-V, V. Sri Ravinder Singh Arora (PAN ABQPA4166N)

ITTA/367/2013

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax against a decision regarding the valuation of land for the purpose of computing capital gains. The Assessing Officer had adopted a land value of Rs.25,000 per square yard based on a letter from the Sub-Registrar Office, Marredpally. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) revised this value to Rs.22,000 per square yard, citing the value prevailing in January 2006 as per SRO records. The Tribunal upheld this revised valuation, leading to the present appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the latter's valuation was based on sound evidence and proper methodology.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 679523 (HC-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: B SARMA
• Keywords: Appeal dismissed; Capital Gains; Income Tax; Valuation of land

Judgement Text

"HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU I.T.T.A.No.367 of 2013 Date: 27-08-2013 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax-V IT Towers, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad. … Appellant And 1. Sri Ravinder Singh Arora, 5-5-105/1,2 & 3, Rani Gunj, Secunderabad. … Respondent HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU I.T.T.A.No.367 of 2013 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) We have heard Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. 2. This appeal is sought to be admitted on the following suggested question of law: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the learned Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in upholding the valuation of land adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per square yard, when the Assessing Officer adopted the value of the land at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per square yard based on the letter of Sub-Registrar Office, Marredpally, which is available in the file, for the purpose of computation of capital gains?” 3. The learned Tribunal in paragraph 28 of the judgment and order has simply recorded as follows: “Coming to the ground raised by the Revenue with regard to value to be adopted by the Assessing Officer at Rs.2,000 per sq. yd. which is as per SRO’s record, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the CIT (A) and the same is confirmed.” 4. It appears that in the said paragraph, the Tribunal has committed apparent mistake while recording wrong figure, as the figure should be Rs.22,000/- instead of Rs.2,000/-. When the learned Tribunal referred to the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we have examined the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He found, on fact, as follows: “In the assessment order, the AO just adopted the value of the land @ Rs.25,000/- per sq. yard but did not base his valuation properly. The appellant, during the course of appellate proceedings, furnished details of sale transaction as obtained by him from the SRO (Sub-Registrar’s Office). His contention that the value prevailing in January, 2006, should have been adopted is acceptable. In the absence of any sound basis for valuing the land @ Rs.25,000/- per sq. yard, I direct the AO to adopt the value of the land at Rs.22,000/- which is as per the SRO’s records and re-compute the capital gains accordingly.” 5. Thus it is clear that the Assessing Officer made the valuation without any foundation, rather he made a guess work. Whereas the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have relied on acceptable materials, namely, the value as recorded by the local registration office. Therefore, we are of the view that correct approach has been adopted by both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Hence, there is no element of law involved in this appeal for admission. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ K.C. BHANU, J Date: 27-08-2013 YCR "