9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of revenue. Admittedly in the present case the assessee has registered the sale consideration in the sale deed of the property sold at Rs. 6,01,47,000/- as against the value adopted by sub-registrar office for charging stamp duty in view of the guideline value fixed at Rs. 9,51,20,528/-. The assessee sold the property of an extent of 9980 sq.ft, bearing Door #31F, Old Door #59, New Door #109, Anna Salai Lane (Mount Road), Guindy Ranganathan Street, Guindy, Chennai 600 032 to M/s. Rajam Foods P Ltd for a sale consideration of 601,47,000/- on 10.07.2015vide a deed of sale registered as document #1908/15 in the office of SRO, Adyar, Chennai. Respectfully following the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Padmavathi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on the ground that the valuation requires verification based on correct address given by the buyer. The second issue is whether the PCIT is right in revising the assessment framed u/s. 143 ( 3 ) of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, where the assessee has objected to the value adopted by stamp valuation authority which is higher than the consideration declared in sale deed. For this assessee has raised following grounds: 2. The Commissioner of Income tax erred in setting aside the assessment order on the ground that the valuation requires verification based on the correct address given by the buyer. 3. The Commissioner of Income tax erred in ignoring the valuation report of an approved valuer along wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the interest of revenue. The Assessing Officer was asked to show cause as to why the assessment order not be set aside. 4. The assessee replied to this show cause notice stating that the assessee has objected to the department considering the value adopted by the stamp valuation as per the sale consideration in terms of section 50C(1) of the Act. Even the assessee produced valuation report by an approved valuer in respect of his property along with the photograph and survey plan. The value in his valuation report determine the value of the said property at the rate of Rs. 4,79,22,000/-, it was contended that the sale consideration of Rs. 6,01,47,000/- is reasonable and represent the fair market value of the property. On the issue of cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue. Admittedly in the present case the assessee has registered the sale consideration in the sale deed of the property sold at Rs. 6,01,47,000/- as against the value adopted by sub-registrar office for charging stamp duty in view of the guideline value fixed at Rs. 9,51,20,528/-. The assessee sold the property of an extent of 9980 sq.ft, bearing Door #31F, Old Door #59, New Door #109, Anna Salai Lane (Mount Road), Guindy Ranganathan Street, Guindy, Chennai 600 032 to M/s. Rajam Foods P Ltd for a sale consideration of 601,47,000/- on 10.07.2015vide a deed of sale registered as document #1908/15 in the office of SRO, Adyar, Chennai. We noted that the exactly identical issue was considered by Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der but the PCIT has nowhere recorded the fact that how the assessment order is erroneous so as to prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The case law cited by Ld. Counsel for the assessee of Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Jagadhri Electric Supply Industrial Co. [1983] 140 ITR 0490, as regards to assumption of jurisdiction, Hon ble High Court held that the tribunal cannot substitute the grounds which the CIT(A) did not find proper to form the basis of his order and even disclosing the facts of that case Hon ble High Court stated that recording of certificate by the ITO to the effect that firm was entitled to continuation of registration and ITO is required to apply his mind and satisfy himself. Such a recording wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o accept the appeal and to set aside the order of the Commissioner. The Tribunal cannot uphold the order of the Commissioner on any other ground which, in its opinion, was available to the Commissioner as well. If the Tribunal is allowed to find out the ground available to the Commissioner to pass an order under Section 263(1) of the Act, then it will amount to a sharing of the exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Commissioner, which is not warranted under the Act, It is all the more so, because the Revenue has not been given any right of appeal under the Act against an order of the Commissioner under Section 263(1) of the Act. In case he proceeds thereunder after hearing the assessee in pursuance of the notice given by him, then the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
