DEEPIKA SUBRAMAMANNIAN,THIRUVANMIYUR CHENNAI vs. PCIT CHENNAI-3, NUNGAMBKKAM,CHENNAI

The Registry has noted delay of 319 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee on the strength of condonation petition supported by the affidavit of the assessee. In the petition, it has been submitted that that assessee received impugned order but was not aware of the fact that the said order was an appealable order and held misconception that she had to wait for assessing officer to pass consequential order. She became aware of this fact only during appellate proceedings challenging consequential order. As per legal advice, she preferred the present appeal. Accordingly, the assessee seeks condonation of delay. The Ld. CIT-DR opposed the same on the ground that the assessee was having legal advice at all the times and took a conscious decision not to file the appeal against revisional order. She preferred appeal only upon passing of adverse consequential order. From the assessee’s submissions during scrutiny assessment proceedings, we find that the assessee only sought online legal advice and she represented the case herself at the time of framing of assessment. Therefore, accepting the plea of the assessee, we condone the delay and proceed with adjudication of the same on merits.

Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that the revision has been sought on the allegation that the assessee purchased certain property during this year for consideration of Rs.66 Lacs as against stamp duty value of Rs.77.87 Lacs. Therefore, Ld. Pr. CIT opined that AO should have invoked the provisions of sec 56(2)(vii) and made addition for the differential amount but he failed to do so. Accordingly, rejecting assessee’s submissions, the assessment framed u/s 143(3) was set aside and Ld. AO was directed to redo the assessment by referring the matter to valuation officer. Aggrieved as aforesaid the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could be seen that assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny. One of the points to be scrutinized was to examine the purchase / sale pf property during the year. During the course of assessment proceedings, notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 03/06/2019 calling for various details including detail of sale / purchase of property. The assessee responded to these notices. Considering the details furnished by the assessee Ld. AO accepted the return of income. In reply dated 24/10/2019 (filed on 06/11/2019), the assessee elaborately explained the source of payment made to purchase the property under consideration. The details of sale consideration as well as stamp duty paid by the assessee was also furnished. On the basis of the same, it could be said that Ld. AO had examine the issue of purchase of property by the assessee and chose not to make any addition on this account. The Ld. Pr. CIT seek revision of the order to invoke the provisions of Sec. 56(2)(vii) [wrongly mentioned as 56(2)(iii) at few places in the impugned order]. However, when once Ld. AO took one of the possible views and chose not to invoke these provisions, Ld. Pr. CIT, in our considered opinion, was not justified in directing fresh assessment by referring the valuation to valuation officer. The Ld. Pr. CIT has not rendered any finding that the market value of the property was higher than the one shown by the assessee. The case law of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT vs. Smt. Padmavathi (120 Taxmann.com 187) supports our conclusion. The Hon’ble Court held that since the guideline value was only an indicator and same is fixed by State Government for the purpose of calculating stamp duty on a deed of conveyance, merely because guideline value was higher than sale consideration shown in deed of conveyance, it cannot be sole reason for holding that assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. This decision would take precedent over the decision of Kochi Tribunal in Vishwanath Manoj Kumar vs. CIT (ITA No.151/Coch/21 dated 12.06.2023) as cited by Ld. CIT-DR. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, we quash the impugned order.

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order.