D.MARAGATHAM,MELUR vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-2(4), MADURAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear and the Ld. DR pleaded for confirmation of the impugned order. The DVO's valuation was adopted, and capital gains were computed based on that.
What were the facts?
The assessee sold vacant land for Rs. 7.25 Lacs but claimed the sale consideration was only Rs. 1.95 Lacs. The DVO valued the property at Rs. 7.25 Lacs, leading to the adoption of this value for capital gains computation.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 1.18 Lacs made under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, concerning the valuation of sold land.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2008- 09arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai [CIT(A)] dated 06.11.2019in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3)r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 30.03.2015. The sole grievance of the assessee is 2 - confirmation of certain addition of Rs.1.18 Lacs u/s 50C. There is a delay of 24 days in the appeal which stand condoned.
At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for confirmation of impugned order. Havingconsidered relevant material on record, our adjudication would be as under.
The assessee sold vacant land area of 1344 Sq. Ft. for Rs.7.25 Lacs on 26.12.2007 but did not file return of income. Therefore, the case was reopened. The assessee submitted that the sale consideration was only Rs.1.95 Lacs. The valuation was referred to Ld. DVO who valued to property at Rs.7.25 Lacs. Accordingly, the same was adopted and capital gains of Rs.4.58 Lacs were computed.
During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the guideline value as mentioned in sale deed was Rs.260/- per sq. ft. which was supported by certificate dated 30.03.2015 issued by Sub- Registrar,Melur. The assessee’s submissions were subjected to remand proceedings. The Ld. AO sent a letter to Sub-Registrar, Melur wherein the guideline value of Muniyandi Koli Street was mentioned as Rs.540/- per Sq. Ft. The Sub-Registrar, however, did not mention the exact location of the land. The Ld. AO drew an inference that as per registration deed, there is no mention of exact location of plot. Only the survey numbers and the boundaries have been mentioned. Considering the survey numbers, the guideline value would be Rs.106.60 per Sq. Ft. However, for Muniyandi Koli Street, the guideline value given by the Sub-Registrar was Rs.540/- per Sq. Ft. In the said scenario, Ld. AO proposed adoption of Rs.540/- per sq. ft. Accepting the same, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
From the perusal of remand report, it could be noted that the exact location of the land has not been given by Sub-Registrar. Further, going by the survey nos., the guideline value was much lower at Rs.106.06 per Sq. Ft. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the guideline value of Rs.260/- as certified by Sub-Registrar, Melur for assessee-specific property was to be accepted as the sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gains. The Ld. AO is directed to adopt sale consideration @Rs.260/- per Sq. Ft. and recompute the income of the assessee. The ground stand partly allowed. No other ground arises in the appeal.
The appeal stands partly allowed.
Order pronounced on 12th October, 2022.
More judgments on Section 50C
- M N S Barium Salts, Kadapa vs ITO, Ward-1, KadapaITA 2412/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sawalchand Chunilal Bafna HUF, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer-16(1)(1), MumbaiITA 7492/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jagdishbhai Vasharambhai Italiya, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 150/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Rohini Ramhari Bhadale, Pune vs Assessing Officer Ward 2(2) Pune, PuneITA 2767/PUN/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Sweta Somani, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 44(2), KolkataITA 1656/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026