V.JAGGANNATHAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 30-08-2017 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26-03-2015. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:

filed before the Commissioner as additional grounds, questioning the action of the Assessing Officer in reworking the guideline value for the purpose of valuation of land, especially after considering the appellant’s submissions based on the guideline value furnished by the Sub- Registrar’s Office, Adyar which clearly supports the submissions of the appellant/assessee is erroneous, against the provisions of law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have considered the submissions of the appellant on this issue and should have accepted the appellant’s contention that the guideline value for the purpose of reworking the value of the land under section 50C(2) of the Act can be only Rs.3,332/-per square feet based on the guideline value as against Rs.7,038/- per square feet adopted by the Valuation Officer by giving a categorical finding instead of leaving the issue undecided.

3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the submissions made by the appellant on the question of recognition of guideline value on the date of Agreement in the light of the provisions of proviso to section 50C of the ‘Act’ and section 43CA of the ‘Act’, as also the Report of the Income Tax Simplification Committee (Eashwar Committee). For these reasons and for any other reason that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the issue of valuation based on the main contention raised by the appellant instead of ignoring the said contention and deciding the issue on the basis of alternate contention alone.

, Ld. AR submitted that additional ground nos. 1 to 3 as raised by the assessee during appellate proceedings has not been adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR also submitted that the rectification application as filed by the assessee has also not been disposed-off. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) in the light of rectification application filed by the assessee.

3. Having heard rival submissions and after careful consideration of material on records, our adjudication would be as under.

4. The case was reopened since it was noted that the assessee sold certain property at less than stamp duty value and the provisions of Sec.50C were applicable to the case of the assessee. It transpired that 3 - the assessee, along with two co-owners, sold a property situated at 89- A, Santhome High Road, R.A. Puram for sale consideration of Rs.160 Lacs. The assessee’s share in the built-up area was 2224 square feets out of total 5224 square feets. The sale agreement was entered into on 18.08.2006 whereas the sale deed was executed on 16.03.2007. The assessee received advance from time to time. The stamp duty value of the property was Rs.270.43 Lacs and the seller had paid stamp duty accordingly. The guideline land value was taken to be Rs.234.43 Lacs whereas the guideline building value was taken to be Rs.36 Lacs. The guideline rate per square feet of land was taken as Rs.8,850/- per square feet. Though the assessee opposed application of Sec.50C, however, rejecting the same, Ld. AO computed additional capital gains of Rs.48.17 Lacs by adopting guideline value. The matter of valuation was referred to valuation officer. Since the valuation report was not received, the assessment was completed by computing the capital gains based on stamp duty valuation.

5 - per square feet which was the same as returned by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that additional grounds raised by the assessee during appellate proceedings were not addressed by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. After going through impugned order, we concur that this issue has not been addressed in the impugned order. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to address the additional grounds raised by the assessee. The submissions of the assessee are that the guideline value during the relevant period was Rs.3332/- per square feet only. The facts of the same may be brought on record and the issue may be re- adjudicated in the light of the same.

9. The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 21st February, 2022