Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC ”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.689/Hyd/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Venkatesh Pasham, Vs. Income Tax Officer, D-2, DRDO Complex, Ward-13(3), Sikh Vilalge, Bowenpally, Hyderabad. Secunderabad – 500 011. PAN: AEWPP 1206 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue by: Sri N. Ravi Babu, DR Date of hearing: 30/09/2019 Date of pronouncement: 04/10/2019 ORDER
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad dated 21/2/2018 in appeal No. 0124/2016- 17/ITO, W-13(3)/CIT(A)-4/Hyd/17-18 passed U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 & U/.s 250(6) of the Act for the assessment year 2008-09.
The assessee has raised eight grounds in his appeal however, the crux of the issue is that the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A) who had upheld the ex-parte order of the Ld. AO wherein he had made addition of Rs. 14,83,220/- towards LTCG invoking the provisions
of section 50C of the Act without referring the matter to the DVO for valuation.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an employee working in Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO). As per the information received from SRO it was noticed by the Ld. AO that the assessee has sold a house property situated at 7-17, Subash Nagar Colony, Jeedimetala Village, Quthbullapur Mandal for sale consideration of Rs. 12 lakhs whereas the market value of the property as per the sale deed registered in the Sub-Registrar’s Officer dated 5/11/2007 was Rs. 17,00,000/-. Thereafter the Ld. AO issued notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act and further several show-cause letters were issued intimating the date of hearing. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing therefore, the Ld. AO passed ex-parte order based on the materials on the record and assessed the LTCG at Rs. 14,83,220/- invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act by adopting the sale consideration at Rs. 17 lakhs. Before the Ld. CIT (A) the Ld. AR had argued stating that the Ld. AO had failed to refer the matter to the Ld. DVO for ascertaining the market value of the property sold by the assessee. It was further submitted that the actual market value of the property sold by the assessee was only Rs. 12 lakhs and the assessee could not get a better offer and therefore, was forced to sell at that price. However, the Ld. CIT (A) rejecting the submission of the Ld. AR upheld the order of the Ld. AO by observing as under:-
“6.3. I have carefully considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. During the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant submitted that the Assessing Officer alternatively adopted SRO value without referring it to the Valuation Officer. These submissions of the appellant are not accepted, since the claim was not made before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings. Therefore, I am in agreement with the Assessing Officer and the addition made confirmed.”
Before us, the Ld. AR argued by stating that the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT (A) has erred by not referring the matter to the Ld. DVO for obtaining the market value of the property sold by the assessee but simply invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act for the purpose of computing LCTG in the case of the assessee. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO with direction to obtain the market value of the property from the Ld. DVO and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law and merit. The Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently opposed to the submissions of the ld. AR and prayed for confirming the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities.
I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record, and I find merit in the submission of the Ld. AR. The assessee being an employee employed in DRDO would have been hard pressed for time which may have resulted in his non-appearance before the Ld. Revenue Authorities on the date of hearing. Further, considering the facts of the case, it is evident that the difference between the market value as per SRO and the actual price for which the
immovable property was sold is not substantial. There is every possibility for such difference in value due to various factors. Therefore, in the interest of justice I hereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for the limited purpose of ascertaining the market value of the property by referring the matter to the Ld. DVO and thereafter compute the LCTG invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act after affording proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open Court on 04th October, 2019.
Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 04th October, 2019 OKK Copy to:- 1) Sri Venkatesh Pasham, D-2, DRDO Complex, Sikh Village, Bowenpally, Secunderabad-500 001. 2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(3), Hyderabad. 3) The CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad 4) The Pr. CIT-4, Hyderabad 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File