RAMAN CHANDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 3 (1), CHENNAI

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 402/CHNY/2018 िनधा�रण वष� /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Raman Chandran, The Income Tax Officer, No.1 Fourth Street, v. Non-Corporate Ward -3(1), Gopalapuram, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 086. PAN : AAGPC 8432L (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri Macharla Rosaiah, CA ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri B. Sajive, JCIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 09.11.2021 आदेश /O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai, in ITA No.234/2016-17/A.Y.2014-15/CIT(A)-4 vide order dated 16.10.2017. The Assessment was framed by ITO, Non Corporate Ward- 3(1)(i/c), Chennai for the assessment year 2014-15 vide order dated 07.12.2016 U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2 2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is barred by limitation by 9 days. The cause explained in the affidavit vide para 3 & 4 reads as under:- “3. The counsel for the appellant Sri Devanathan received the papers which were found wanting in details since the appellant was not in town due to reasons beyond his control was placed in Out of Station.

4. The papers concerning the appeal were submitted belatedly by the appellant who was ignorant of the technicalities of court proceedings and produced the relevant papers to the counsel who had to cover sufficient grounds to place the papers in right perspective to file them before the appellate court.” When these were confronted to ld. senior Department Representative, he could not reply. As the cause seems reasonable, I condone the delay and admit the appeal.

3 constructed thereon measuring 716 sq.ft. with built up area in Ground Floor 500 sq.ft., and in first floor 216 sq.ft. The assessee claimed a loss of Rs.56,220/- being 50% of his share on the sale of this property after claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.32,86,500/- and also the indexed cost of improvements at Rs.22,26,078/-. It was claimed that this property was purchased in the year 1979 for a sum of Rs.32,000/-. According to the AO, the cost of building per sq.ft., works out to Rs.45/-. The assessee worked out the capital gain by adopting per sq.ft., rate of the building i.e., cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 at Rs.203/- per sq.ft. The AO applied the rate per sq.ft to the building at Rs.100/- per sq.ft. as on 01.04.1981 and reworked the long term capital gain. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by stating that keeping in view the time gap, the AO has taken a reasonable value of Rs.100/- per sq.ft., as against Rs.203/- per sq.ft., adopted by the assessee. It was contented that the Registered Valuer has taken the value at Rs.190/- per sq.ft., of the building.

4 amount estimated at Rs.100/- per sq.ft., by the AO will meet the ends of justice. I find the plea of assessee’s counsel reasonable and taking the value as on 01.04.1981 i.e., cost of acquisition of the building at Rs.150/- per sq.ft. I direct the AO accordingly. The AO will recompute the capital gains accordingly.