2021 (5) TMI 895 - AT - Income Tax

Capital gain computation - adopting the value determined by the DVO in terms of section 50C - HELD THAT - As the facts are pari materia with the facts already considered by the Tribunal 2018 (10) TMI 1893 - ITAT CHENNAI Therefore, by following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of ITAT., Chennai in the case of ITO Vs. Shri Neelamanikandan (supra), we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to recompute the long term capital gain by adopting the value determined by the DVO in terms of section 50C of the Act. Appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal by the assessee
2. Consideration of property value as per DVO report
3. Adoption of DVO value for computation of long term capital gain

Analysis:
1. The appeal filed by the Revenue challenges the order of the CIT(A) regarding the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. The Revenue contends that the CIT(A) erred in condoning the delay of 134 days without passing a speaking order. The Revenue argues that the CIT(A) should not have considered the plea of the assessee regarding the sale consideration of the property and should have set aside the order and restored that of the Assessing Officer. The grounds of appeal highlight the perceived errors in the CIT(A)'s decision-making process.

2. The case involves the consideration of the property value based on the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The search operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act revealed discrepancies in the sale consideration of a property purchased by a company. The Assessing Officer adopted the value as per section 50C of the Act, which was higher than the sale consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed. However, the DVO estimated the market value of the property lower than the guideline value. The CIT(A), after considering the DVO report and submissions of the assessee, deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the DVO value should have been adopted for computation of long term capital gain.

3. The final issue revolves around the adoption of the DVO value for the computation of long term capital gain. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where a similar issue was addressed, and the decision was made to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for recomputation based on the DVO value. In alignment with the precedent set in the previous case, the Tribunal in this judgment set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the long term capital gain by adopting the value determined by the DVO as per section 50C of the Act. The appeal filed by the Revenue was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, concluding the matter in favor of the Revenue based on the application of legal principles and precedents.