Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘ B ’ BENCH, HYDERABAD.
Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHUShri Ashwin Joshi,
O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2009-10 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Hyderabad’s order dt.25.11.2016 passed in case No.0154/2015-16/CIT(A)-6/15-16 in proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Coming to the assessee's sole substantive grievance is that the CIT(Appeals) had erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to adopt Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 1.4.1981 at Rs.900 per sq. yard than that claimed at Rs.1600 per sq. yard, we straightaway come to the lower appellate discussion readily as under :
We have heard rival submissions against and in support of the impugned FMV of the assessee capital asset as on 1.4.1981. The assessee has filed a detailed paper book running into 120 pages comprising of his written submissions before the CIT(Appeals), Tribunal’s first round order dt.31.7.2013 (supra), tribunal yet another order
dt.26.9.2008 in the case of ACIT Vs. Sri Narsimha Rao (HUF) and Others (ITA No.1240/Hyd/2007) estimating the FMV as much more than SRO price keeping in mind the clinching fact that the same for rewaived estimation unchanged from 1976 to 1995, similar other orders in the case of Shri G.Vijay Vs. DCIT & Others dt.29.4.2005 (ITA No.276/Hyd/2003) and Shri Ashven Datla Vs. ITO in Dt.29.10.2010; written submissions made before the CIT(Appeals), registered valuer’s report dt.29.04.2009, DVO’s report dt.30.3.2015, CIT(Appeals) first round lower appellate order dt.29.06.2012, the Assessing Officer’s former estimation dt.19.12.2011, gift settlement dt.28.7.2004 and sale deed dt.2.3.2009 forming subject matter of the impugned case; respectively, stands perused.
Learned authorized representative vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in determining the FMV of the capital asset(s) as Rs.900 per sq. yard only
1.4.1981 despite the fact that the same was situated in Hyderabad city’s very posh Banjara Hills area. And also that the assessee has proved by way of producing sale instances of such affluent locality(ies) that the impugned capital asset(s) FMV deserves to be taken as atleast Rs.1500 per sq. yard. We find no merit in the assessee's argument mainly going by his registered valuer report dt.29.4.2009 wherein he has not even tried to ascertain as to whether the corresponding locality has seen any sale deed in the relevant time span or not. It has further come on record that the CIT(Appeals) has precisely considered all the corroborating facts and circumstances whilst adopting the impugned FMV @ Rs.900 as against the Assessing Officer’s action taking it as Rs.25 only. We thus see no reason to interfere with the CIT(Appeals) detailed discussion which has already granted much more than the appropriate relief to the taxpayer; albeit prima facie.
Coming to tribunal's various decisions (supra), learned counsel submitted that hon’ble jurisdictional high
court has also affirmed the same. We find no substance in the assessee's instant latter argument as well since such an estimation does not form a valid precedent keeping in mind since not even pertaining to the very locality. We further quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court full bench’ decision in CIT Vs. B. R. Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP) (FB) defining the contours of a judicial precedent to be applicable only if it discusses all the relevant facts involved as identical footing followed by the relevant statutory provisions. We accordingly reject the assessee's instant latter argument as well.
This assessee's appeal is dismissed.