K.CHANDRAKALA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(3), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 341/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 October 2019AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (SRO Certificate showing lower market value) and decided that the issue of property valuation needs re-verification by the AO. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold a property for Rs. 8 Lakhs, but the AO determined the market value at Rs. 14,76,000/- and completed the assessment under Section 144 after re-opening the case. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition as the assessee provided no evidence for property deficiencies.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct valuation of the property for capital gains computation, specifically whether the AO's market value determination was justified and if additional evidence should be considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI

This appeal filed by the assessee for the AY.2008-09 is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–7, Hyderabad, dated 22-09-2017.

2.

At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 431 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay along with her affidavit, stating that the order of the CIT(A) was not received by her and therefore, she had approached the office of the CIT(A) and obtained a certified copy of the order, due to which, there is a delay of 431 days. The assessee also submitted that she has studied only upto 10th standard and is not fully acquainted with the Income Tax proceedings and has given authorisation on her behalf to her Authorised Representative,

:- 2 -: ITA No. 341/Hyd/2019

who did not apprise the assessee about the finalisation of proceedings. Taking the same into consideration and also the merits of the case, I am inclined to condone the delay and decide the merits of the case of the assessee.

3.

During the relevant financial year, the assessee had sold a house property bearing No.2-4-614, CIB Quarter No.B/32, admeasuring 50 Sq.Yds., situated at Kachiguda, Amberpet, Hyderabad for a sale consideration of Rs.8 Lakhs. The AO observed that the market value of the property is Rs.14,76,000/- and since the assessee did not file the return of income admitting the income from capital gains, the AO issued a notice u/s.148 of the of the Income Tax Act [Act] and re-opened the assessment and the assessment was completed u/s.144 of the Act. Since there was no response from the assessee, the AO brought the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.12,75,699/- to tax.

3.1. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), pointing out certain deficiencies in the property and submitted that the property could not be valued as per market value as mentioned by the AO. The CIT(A) observed that no evidence was furnished by the assessee in support of her claim that the property which was sold, had the deficiencies as pointed out by the Ld.AR of the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO and the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal.

:- 3 -: ITA No. 341/Hyd/2019

4.

Before me, the assessee has filed additional evidence, which is the SRO Certificate, wherein the market value of the property is shown as Rs.9,000/- per sq.yd., and Rs.540 per sq.ft. According to the certificate, the valuation of the land on which property is built would be Rs.4,50,000/-, and the value of such a small property would definitely not be the consideration allegedly to be the market value. Since the basis for adopting the market value at Rs.14,60,000/- by the AO is not available on record, I am of the opinion that the issue needs re-verification and the same is to be remitted back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication, after considering the SRO Value as submitted by the assessee. Therefore, I am inclined to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and remit the issue back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication after giving a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2019

Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 31-10-2019 TNMM

:- 4 -: ITA No. 341/Hyd/2019

Copy to :

1.

K.Chandrakala, C/o. P.Murali & Co., Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, 1st Floor, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(3), Hyderabad.

3.

CIT(Appeals)-7, Hyderabad.

4.

Pr.CIT-7, Hyderabad.

5.

D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad.

6.

Guard File.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →