9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Therefore, we set aside the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and remit the entire disputed issue to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to pass the order afresh based on the above findings and provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1899/Mds/2015 - - - Dated:- 19-4-2016 - Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member And Shri G. Pavan Kumar, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri. T. V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT ORDER Per G. Pavan Kumar, Judicial Member The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai in ITA No.09/2011-12, dt 30.07.2015 for the assessment year 2006-2007 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the Act ). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in fixing the value of the property (Land Factory Building) at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his powers uls 133(6) of the Act; moreover the requirement of section 23A(6) of the Wealth Tax Act regarding Valuation Officer's attendance before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal proceedings has not been complied with thereby violating the requirement of the Act and the principles of natural justice . 3. The Brief facts of the case, the assessee is in the business of trading of medical equipments and filed Return of income on 30.11.2006 admitting total income of Rs. .31.89,950/- 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 Rs. .80,00,000/-. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax found that the long term capital gains on sale of land measuring 8535 sq.ft in Vikram Sarabai Instronics Estate, Thiruvanmiyur based on the adopted ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransaction took place, and the Authorities 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. (2010) 326 ITR 0245 (Mad), where the jurisdictional High Court had an occasion to decide this issue. In this case the Sub- Registrar refused to release the documents except on payment of higher stamp duty on enhanced valuation. Since the buyers wanted the title document to be released at the earliest, they chose to pay the stamp duty without contesting the same and without consulting the assessee. The explanation offered by the assessee that, as seller, it did not have any locus standi in the proceedings 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' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d rate estimated by the valuation officer contrary to the sale value as per Sub-Registrar office records. Further there is gross violation of natural justice in appellate proceedings as the assessee requested valuation officer to forward the CD furnished by the Sub-Registrar office but ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed order without considering the data in the CD and confirmed the value adopted u/sec. 50C of the Act. The ld. Authorised Representative further 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 to 31.07.2007 is Rs. .516/- per sq.ft and the value adopted by the assessee ₹ 879/- per sq.ft is higher in comparison with the Registration value applicable to the current assessment year and pleaded to allow the appeal of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
