SMT. KALAVATHI RAJENDRAN,,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, NCC - 2, , COIMBATORE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore (hereinafter called as ‘CIT(A)’) in Appeal No.157/17-18 dated 27.05.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16.

It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the assessee had sold four portions of land in Daminedu, Tiruchanoor Group, Tirupathi. It was a submission that when filing the return, the assessee had reported a long term capital gains from the same. It was a submission that subsequently it was recognized by the assessee that the said lands sold were agricultural lands. It was a submission that the Assessing Officer did not consider the contentions of the assessee that the lands sold were agricultural lands and proceeded to compute the capital gains by adopting the guideline value by applying the provisions u/s.50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “CIT(A)”). It was a submission that the assessee had objected to the application of the guideline value and the Assessing Officer had called for a valuation report from the DVO, Tirupati on 18.12.2017, which is the date on which the Assessment Order was passed. It was a submission that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had produced a certificate issued by the Village Revenue Officer, Daminedu Village, wherein it was specified that the said lands sold to the extent of 5.39 acres was located in Tirupati rural area and was nearly seven kilometers from the Tirupati Municipal Corporation. It was a submission that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also did not consider the certificate produced by the assessee and had dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was a prayer that the issues in the 3 -: appeal be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and to consider the assessee’s plea that the lands were agricultural lands as also the certificate issued by the Village Revenue Officer. It was fairly admitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the DVO’s report is also to be considered as the same is not yet been received.

The perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has not considered the assessee’s claim that the lands sold were agricultural lands. It could be that the Assessing Officer had taken the view that the assessee has herself disclosed the long term capital gains and therefore the claim of agricultural land would no more survive. Here, it must be appreciated that the Assessing Officer is not just a Tax Aggregator. If any particular amount is liable to be taxed, yes, the same must be taxed in its correct form. Just because there is an error from the side of the assessee, it cannot be held that the said error is to be held in detriment to the assessee.

After considering all the submissions of the assessee and the claim, the Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment denovo.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.