2022 (5) TMI 1349 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of assessment - determination of the value for the purpose of computation of income - violation of the principles of natural justice - challenge to the impugned order is primarily on the ground that it is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not heard before the impugned order was passed - second ground on which the impugned order is challenged is on account of the fact that despite the petitioner requesting for cross-examination of the persons from whom a statement was obtained by the Income Tax Department, they were not allowed to be cross-examined - HELD THAT - The dispute in this present case pertains to sale of 110 cents of land out of total extent of 8.59 acres. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though the sale deed, dated 26.02.2007 declares a sale consideration as Rs. 15,00,000/-, receipt of such confirmed in the said sale deed, the petitioner has not received a single penny from the buyer. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner was not the sole owner of the property but a co-owner along with the sibling and that tax if can be demanded only on the proportionate value. Even as per the petitioner, the petitioner has not received any consideration from his buyer, namely, V.Palanikumar. Therefore, the petitioner s demand for cross-examination of his sibling is an exercise in futility. In the remand report that they had categorically stated that they had given up their rights and it is the petitioner who sold the land to V.Palanikumar after given their power in his favour. Thus, no useful purpose will be served by summoning his siblings for cross-examination. No merits in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a violation of principles of natural justice as no cross-examination was not allowed to cross-examine the petitioner s siblings. As the far as the cross-examination of the buyer, V.Palanikumar is concerned, was also irrelevant as documents namely sale deed speak for itself. Whatever, the sale consideration declared in the sale deed, dated 26.02.2007 is of no relevant. The value that has to be determined under Section 50 C of the Income Tax Act. If the guideline value is more than the value declared in the document, then guideline value is relevant for payment of tax. whether the petitioner has received the aforesaid amount is of no consequence. As long as a sale was effected the petitioner is bound by Section 50 C of the Income Tax Act. Argument that value has to be redetermined under Section 50 C (2) was taken up for the first time. It is evident that the petitioner is dragging on the proceedings to stall recovery of the tax amount. We do not find any merits in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order based on violation of natural justice and denial of cross-examination rights.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contested the assessment order dated 27.09.2021, alleging violation of natural justice principles as they were not given a hearing before the order was passed. Additionally, the petitioner was denied the opportunity to cross-examine individuals from whom statements were obtained by the Income Tax Department, including the buyer V.Palanikumar, despite specific requests. The petitioner relied on legal precedents like Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT and others to support their arguments.

2. The petitioner argued that despite the property being under litigation and no sale consideration being received, the assessment was completed without due process. Reference was made to Circulars and legal judgments to emphasize the necessity of a fair assessment process, including personal hearings as mandated by Section 144 of the Income Tax Act.

3. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, refuted the petitioner's claims, asserting that the assessment was conducted in accordance with the law. They highlighted that the buyer's statement was not relied upon, and the value determination under Section 50 C was based on documentary evidence, rendering cross-examination unnecessary.

4. The Court reviewed the arguments presented by both parties and the history of the case, noting that the petitioner had previously failed to participate in appeal proceedings. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claims of procedural irregularities or violation of natural justice, as the documents were deemed self-explanatory and sufficient for assessment purposes.

5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner the right to file a statutory appeal within thirty days. The appellate authority was directed to review the case independently, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard. The judgment concluded without imposing any costs on either party, closing the related Miscellaneous Petitions.