9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner/assessee who is a manpower consultant, had sold landed property in Bangalore Rural District for a consideration of Rs. 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 79,21,500/-. The petitioner/assessee had not filed any return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act and as he failed to file the return of income, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the petitioner/assessee on 05.03.2013 calling for the return of income. In response to the said notice, the petitioner/assessee filed return of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d further sufficient time was requested by the assessee to file the reply. 4. Thereafter, a notice under Section 143(2)(ii) of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 12.02.2014 calling upon the petitioner to appear in the office of the second respondent on 17.02.2014. This was followed by another notice dated 12.02.2014 under Section 142(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the return of income on 07.02.2014. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not raise any objection as regards valuation of the property and for the first 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 As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s rights. 7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of N.Meenakshi v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2010 326 ITR 229 (Madras). As regards the scope of the power under Section 50C(2) of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of S.Muthuraja v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in MANU/TN/1350/2013. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that the conduct of the assessee is also very relevant to be noted by this Court, while considering as to whether the petitioner should be directed to agitate this issue before this Court, without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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 matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of N.Meenakshi v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2010 326 ITR 229 (Madras) stated supra and it is to be noted in the said case, the assessing authority proposed to assess the capital gain on the value fixed by the Stamp Authorities and the assessee therein made a request to the Assessing Authority to refer the matter to the valuation officer for determining the market value of the property and the reference was made to the valuation officer. In the course of the assessment proceedings, however, even before the Valuation Officer filed a report, the assessing officer passed the assessment order taking the value of the land as determined by the Registering Authority, which according to the petitioner was against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed of and the matter was restored to the files of the Assessing Officer to work out the capital gain invoking 50C(2) of the Act, since the specific objection was made by the assessee to the assessing officer adopting market value under Section 50C(2) of the Act by filing objection immediately. 14. In the light of the above facts, the decision in the case of N.Meenakshi v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2010 326 ITR 229 (Madras) stated supra, cannot be directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the factual position was entirely different as unless the purchaser of the property was Government concern and they did not dispute the valuation under the Indian Stamp Act; the petitioner the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
