9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner is to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals III) under Section 246 of the Act – the order is upheld – Decided against revenue. - W. P. No. 9988 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 10-10-2014 - T. S. Sivagnanam,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Suhrith Parthasarathy For the Respondents : Mr. T. Pramod Kumar Chopda, Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioner, who is an individual assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the second respondent under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, (herein after referred to as 'the Act') 1961, for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The petitioner/assessee who is a manpower consultant, had sold landed property in Bangalore Rural District for a consideration of ₹ 95,00,000/- during the assessment year 2007-08 and as per the sale deed dated 23.01.2007, the guideline value of the property was ₹ 3,00,00,000/-. The property which was sold by the petitioner/ assessee was purchased by him on 12.10.2004 for a total sale consideration of ₹ 79,21,500/-. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time on 06.03.2014, the petitioner sent a letter stating that he had placed on record his objection for the valuation adopted by the stamp valuation authority as market value by drawing the attention of the Assessing officer to Section 50C(2)(a) of the Act. It is to be noted that the assessment should be completed on or before 31.03.2014 or else the same would be time barred. The Assessing officer while passing the impugned order of assessment, considered the request made by the petitioner, invoking Section 50C of the Act. 5. It was observed that the assessee has not agitated against the value adopted by the Sub Registrar at the time of registration and no appeal was filed against the decision of the Sub Registrar and having accepted the valuation determined by the Sub Registrar at the time of registering the property, agitating before the assessing officer for adopting the value under Section 50C is not proper and fair. Therefore, the Assessing Officer rejected the request of the assessee for referring the matter to the Valuation Officer. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer proceeded to consider the contention regarding the term of capital assets and finalised the statement and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property which was sold is a vacant land and there is no building or structure in the land to value the same by the Valuation Officer and therefore, the Assessing Officer rightly rejected the request. Further the property was sold in the year 2007 and the Sub Registrar adopted the market value at ₹ 3,00,00,000/-, which was accepted by the petitioner and he did not question the valuation and no appeal was filed. Having accepted the valuation, at the fag end of the assessment proceedings, it is highly improper and unfair on the part of the petitioner now to seek for invoking Section 50C of the Act. Further the learned Standing Counsel submitted that there is no reason for the petitioner to by-pass the appeal remedy and all these issues could be raised before the Appellate Authority under Section 246 of the Act and the Commissioner (Appeals) may be directed to dispose of the matter on further enquiry or may direct the assessing officer to make further enquiry and report the result of the same to the Commissioner of Appeal. Therefore, the Appellate Authority is entitled to examine the issue and all these matters could be easily be agitated in the appeal. 10. Heard the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any arbitrariness which may creep in while fixing the value of the capital gain and that is the safeguard given to the assessee and that the said right is more effective in cases where the parties to the document have not taken any steps to defend or to initiate proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the said case, inasmuch as the purchaser, which was a Government concern, has not taken any steps under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act and therefore the only remedy for the petitioner therein was under Section 50C of the Act. As regards the availability of the alternative remedy, this Court held that it is an un-disputed fact that the matter was pending before the valuation officer which had been referred by the assessing officer and without waiting for the valuation report, the assessment was completed and therefore the availability of alternative remedy would not be a bar for the court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. The decision in the case of S.Muthuraja v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in MANU/TN/1350/ 2013 stated supra arose out of a Tax Case Appeal filed by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
