Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 1012 - ITAT CHENNAI

2016 (5) TMI 1012 - ITAT CHENNAI - TMI - Adoption of land rate for the purpose of valuation u/s.50C - Held that:- Authorised Representative drew our attention to the letter dated 08.02.2014 filed with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) requesting to call for the CD for adjudicating the appeal. Further to consider valuation cell letter dt. 10.03.2005 and letter of Registration Department, Sub-Registrar, Adayar dt 24.02.2011 referring guideline value adopted in respect of Vikram Sarabai Inst .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

provided opportunity to the assessee inspite of written request furnished in the appellate proceedings. So, assessee should be provided with one more opportunity based on the guideline value, valuation report and valuation under Wealth Tax Act and to consider the contents of CD as requested by the assessee in adjudicating the appeal. - Decided partly in favour of assessee for statistical purpose. - I.T.A. No.1899/Mds/2015 - Dated:- 19-4-2016 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llowing grounds:- 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in fixing the value of the property (Land & Factory Building) at Dr.Vikram Sarabhai Instronics Estate, Thiruvanmiyur sold on 21.09.2005 as ₹ 1 ,21 ,75,1111- as against the actual sale consideration of ₹ 80,00,000/-. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in virtually approving the value of the property estimated by the Valuation Officer on a reference u/s 50C(2) of the Act in the incorrect view that such value is binding on the & .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Clothing Co. Ltd [(2010) 326 ITR 245 (Mad)] cited 1 relied on by the Commissioner (Appeals) have no relevance to the fact situation in the present case and are distinguishable. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not accepting the detailed objections raised to the land rate estimated by the Valuation Officer in a manner contrary to the sale instances as per the Sub-Registrar's office records cited by the Valuation Officer himself in his order u/s 16A(5) of the WT Act r.w.s 50C of the IT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. The appellant submits that in the course of the appeal proceedings the appellant· had requested the Valuation Officer to forward the CD for the period 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2006 furnished by the Sub-Registrar, Adayar, Chennai to the Valuation Officer vide Sub-Registrar's letter dated 24.02.2011 to the Commissioner (Appeals); the CD was not forwarded by the Valuation Officer to the Commissioner (Appeals) nor did the Commissioner (Appeals) direct the Valuation Officer to submit the CD e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,950/- and return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and the case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 18.12.2008 accepting long term capital gains admitted by the assessee in the revised computation of income. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax found the order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the long term capital gains was admitted by the assessee based on sale consideration of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

011 by set asiding the assessment u/sec.143(3) dt. 18.12.2008 and directed the Assessing Officer to refer for the valuation of capital asset and to make fresh assessment in accordance with provisions of Sec. 50C of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer as per the directions of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax referred to the valuation officer for ascertaining the value. The valuation officer vide order in F.No.VO II/MDS/CG(04)/2010-11, dated 29.04.2011 estimated fair market value of the property at & .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the assessee. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). 4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Authorised Representative argued the grounds of appeal and filed written submissions. Further gave clarifications on the adoption of stamp duty value supported by elaborate submissions by letters dated 06.02.2014 and 17.03.2015 on disputed issue. The ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions in details and observed in paras 4.1.3 to 4.1.6 of his order and dismissed the appea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ties replied that the records asked for are not available as the application was filed beyond the retention period of the documents. No purpose is served by summoning the Sub-Registrar or other officials at this juncture, as requested by the appellant, since the documents on which the valuation of property was based are no longer available with the concerned authorities. 4.1.4. The facts and circumstances of this case are more or less similar to those in the case of Ambattur Clothing Co. Ltd. (2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eedings and hence the assessee should not be made to suffer by enhancing the assessment was rejected by the Assessing Officer. In its judgement, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras observed as under: The explanation offered by the assessee before the assessing authority in respect of the deemed value of the two properties was that' while registering, the Sub-Registrar refused to release the documents except on payment of higher stamp duty on enhanced valuation. Since the buyers wanted the t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tax. Moreover, as observed by the Hon 'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar (2012) 349 ITR 0210 (All) the report of the DVO is binding on the Assessing Authorities once a reference is made u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act. This is a case where appellant requested for reference to the DVO in the course of proceeding u/ s.263 of the LT. Act. 4.1.6. However, sub-section 3 of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act says that in case the value .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the order, the assessee assailed an appeal before Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions of assessment, appellate proceedings and valuation cell. The ld. CIT(A) erred in fixing the value of the property at Rs. .1,21,75,111/- as against original consideration of Rs. .80,00,000/-. The ld. CIT(A)relied on the estimation of the valuation officer as per section 50C(2) of the Act and reference of Wealth Tax Act 1957 and overlooked the objections in valuation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rther submitted that the valuation rate adopted by the assessee being Rs. .879/- per sq.ft for the land, wereas ld. Assessing officer based on the valuation report adopted the land value Rs. .1,254/- per sq.ft and assessed the income. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax has ignored the grounds and information of the registration department in letter dated 24.02.2011, were the guideline value fixed for Vikran Sarabai Institute Estate in Kottivakkam Village, Thiruvanmiyur for the period 1.04.2003 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

option of land rate for the purpose of valuation u/s.50C of the Act. The assessee has sold the property and offered long term capital gains of Rs. .41,52,340/- for 8535 sq.ft area situated in Vikram Sarabai Instronics Estate, Thirumanmiyur by adopting Rs. .879/- per sq.ft as sale consideration. But on perusal of the sale deed, the registration charges are paid Rs. .10,95,760/- being 9% of market value adopted by the Sub-Registrar paid by the purchaser. Subsequent to the revision proceedings the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version