Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai in 7/2015-16 dated 28.02.2018 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
Mr. Arun Kurian Joseph, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr. A. Sundararajan, Additional CIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the issue in the assessee’s appeal was on account of the non-granting of an opportunity to have the property sold by the assessee valued by the DVO for determining the fair market value as on 01.04.1981. It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the assessee had sold a property at Thiruvanmiyur and another property at Velachery. In respect of the property at Thiruvanmiyur, the assessee had claimed the cost of acquisition at Rs.82.50 per Sq.ft and had computed the capital gains. It was a submission that the assessee had produced the assessee’s valuation report dated 07.04.2015 but the assessment had already been completed by 16.03.2015. It was a submission that even before the assessee could produce any evidence to substantiate his claim, the assessment had been completed. It was a prayer that the issue in the appeal may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication and also after obtaining the DVO’s report in regard to the cost of acquisition.
In reply, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that he had no objection if the issues were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
We have considered the rival submission and perused the materials available on record.
3 -: 6. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the valuation report of the approved valuer as produced by the assessee is dated 07.04.2015, whereas the assessment has been completed on 16.03.2015. The perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the assessee never had an opportunity to rebut the valuation of the fair market value as has been arrived by the Assessing Officer. In the circumstances, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the issues in the appeal should be restored to the file of the Assessing for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and we do so. The Assessing Officer is also directed that if necessary the fair market value of the property is to be determined by having the same valued by the DVO.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 2nd January, 2020 in Chennai.