PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF IN vs. SMT. A.RAHAMADUNNISA

PDF · subscribers
TCA/1018/2019HC Madras13 July 2020Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present appeal was identical in facts to TCA.No.1017 of 2019, which was filed by the Revenue against the assessee's brother. In that earlier case, by a judgment dated July 9, 2019, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue. Following the precedent set in that judgment, the High Court dismissed the present tax case appeal. Consequently, all the substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue. The court did not provide a separate reasoning for each of the three issues raised, but rather relied on the prior decision. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry-3, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated May 10, 2019, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'A' Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2010-11 and concerns the respondent assessee, Smt. A. Rahamadunnisa. The dispute revolves around the valuation of a property. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law. The procedural history indicates that this appeal is identical in facts to a previous appeal filed by the Revenue concerning the assessee's brother, TCA.No.1017 of 2019.

What were the issues?

The High Court had to decide three substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT's order was perverse for relying on a registered valuer's report dated April 8, 2019, which was allegedly inaccurate, deficient, and incomplete, without providing a basis for adopting a higher rate of Rs. 290/- per sq.ft. as of April 1, 1981, and without reference to comparable cases. 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in following the property value of Rs. 20/- per sq.ft. as of April 1, 1981, as adopted by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on the Sub-Registrar office report under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act. 3. Whether the ITAT was justified in accepting fresh evidence, namely the registered valuer's report dated April 8, 2019, by ignoring Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and without affording a fair opportunity to the AO. The Revenue argued that the ITAT's reliance on the valuer's report was perverse and that the AO's valuation based on the Sub-Registrar's report should have been followed. The Revenue also contended that accepting fresh evidence without following Rule 46A and without giving the AO an opportunity was incorrect. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.No.1018 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.7.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN TAX CASE APPEAL NO.1018 OF 2019 & CMP.NO.26576 OF 2019 (heard through video conferencing)

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry-3. ...Appellant Vs Smt.A.Rahamadunnisa ...Respondent

APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 10.5.2019 made in ITA.No.191/Chny/2019 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai ‘A’ Bench for the assessment year 2010-11.

For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, SSC For Respondent : Mr.Ashokpathy

Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J We have heard Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant - Revenue and Mr.Ashokpathy, 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.1018 of 2019 learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 2. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 10.5.2019 made in ITA.No.191/Chny/2019 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai ‘A’ Bench for the assessment year 2010-11. 3. The appeal has been admitted on 10.12.2019 on the following substantial questions of law : “i. Is not the order of the Appellate Tribunal perverse by relying upon the valuation report dated 08.4.2019 of the registered valuer, which is inaccurate, deficient and incomplete without giving any basis for the adoption of higher rate of Rs.290/- per sq.ft., as on 01.4.1981 and without reference to any comparable cases ? ii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in following that the value of the property at Rs.20/- per sq.ft., as on 01.4.1981, which was adopted by the Assessing Officer based on the Sub-Registrar office report as per Section 50C of the Income Tax Act ? and iii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in accepting the fresh evidence produced by the assessee namely registered valuer’s report dated 08.4.2019 by ignoring Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and without providing a fair opportunity to the Assessing Officer?” 4. The above questions of law were considered by us in the case of the assessee’s brother on identical facts in TCA.No.1017 of 2019 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.1018 of 2019 and by judgment dated 09.7.2019 [PCIT Vs. S.Sithik Ali], the said appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed and the questions of law were answered against the Revenue. 5. Following the judgment dated 09.7.2019 in TCA.No.1017 of 2019, the above tax case appeal is dismissed and the questions of law were answered against the Revenue. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed.

13.7.2020 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai ‘A’ Bench.

RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.1018 of 2019 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J

TCA.No.1018 of 2019 & &CMP.No.26576 of 2019

13.7.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →