NALINI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(3), CHENNAI
आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण ,‘’सी’’न्यायपीठ,चेन्नई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
श्री मनु कुमार धिरर ,न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री एस.आर.रघुनाथा ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष।
BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपीलसं/.ITA No.1009/Chny/2025
धनिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16
Nalini,
No. 208, AH-Block, 3rd Street,
Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. [PAN: ACOPN7788C]
v.
The Income Tax Officer,
Non Corporate Ward 10(3),
Chennai.
(अपीलाथी/Appellant)
(प्रत्यथी/Respondent)
अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant by :
Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent by :
Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
21.07.2025
घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
28.08.2025
आदेश O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated
30.03.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC,
(hereinafter in short ‘the Ld.CIT(A)’), Delhi, for the Assessment Year
(hereinafter in short ‘AY’) 2015-16. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the appeal has been filed belatedly by ‘312’ days and assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the cause for the delay. Having gone through the contents of the same, we find that cause for delay was reasonable, so we excuse the same and proceed to hear the assessee’s appeal on merits.
2
I.T.A. No. 1009/Chny/25
Nalini
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous as the same is opposed to law and facts and thus liable to be set aside.
The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of the AO without properly considering the submissions filed by the Appellant.
1 The CIT(A) erred in failing to notice that the AO erroneously came to the conclusion that the land sold is not an agricultural land.
2 The AO erred in adopting the Guideline Value (GLV) of the property u/s.50C of the Act without considering the fact that the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the property is much less than the GLV.
1 The CIT(A) erred in failing to delete the addition of Rs.6,61,69,473/-, as the same was made by the AO by arbitrarily adopting the GLV of the property over the FMV.
2 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the reference to the valuation officer lapsed the day he passed the assessment order and the AO can't make a provisional order to await the valuation report.
3 The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition towards capital gains to the income of the Appellant. The same is liable to be deleted in full.
Any other ground/s that may be raised at the time of hearing.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from house property and business. For the assessment year 2015-16, the assessee filed return of income on 03.02.2017 admitting taxable income of Rs.4,68,670/-. During the relevant previous year, the appellant had sold 4.93 acres of agricultural land situated in Kummangalam Village for a consideration of Rs.1,33,11,000/-. Since the land is situated within Ponneri Town Panchayat, the assessee was advised that she was not liable to Capital gain tax. Accordingly, the appellant did not admit any capital gain. The return was taken up for scrutiny and the assessee was served with a notice u/s 143(2). In completing the assessment, the AO has taken the view that Town Panchayats having classified as Third Grade Municipalities under Section 3P of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act 1920, the land sold
3
I.T.A. No. 1009/Chny/25
Nalini was required to be considered as a Capital Asset within the meaning of Sec.2(14) (iii) of the IT Act. She also applied the provisions of Sec.50C, as the value of the land sold was adopted at Rs.6,87,82,000/- by the Sub-