Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
PER SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These are appeals filed by the assessees directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai (hereinafter called as ‘CIT(A)’) in appeals No. ITA No.76/CIT(A)-7/2018-
ITA Nos. 2332 & 2333/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: 19 and both dated 12.06.2019 for the assessment year 2016-17 in the case of Smt. Arulselvam Akshitha and Shri Soundararajan Arulselvan respectively.
Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that in Ground No.3, the assessee has specifically challenged the order of the learned CIT(A) in dismissing the assessee’s appeal. It was submitted that the appeal of the learned CIT(A) was adjourned on multiple occasions at the instance of the Chartered Accountant for want of valuation report of the DVO.
It was a submission that even as on today, the DVO’s report has not yet come.
It was a submission that however, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal.
The learned Authorized Representative drew our attention to the order of the Assessing Officer, wherein at page No.4 it has been specifically mentioned that as per the request of the assessee, the case was referred to the valuation cell u/s.50(C)(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for valuation of the fair market value of the impugned property and that the order was subject to rectification according to the report of the Valuation Officer.
In reply, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). & 2333/Chny/2019 :- 3 -: 6. We have considered the rival submission and perused the materials available on record.
The perusal of the order of the learned CIT(A) shows that in para – 6, the learned CIT(A) has recorded multiple opportunities, wherein it is alleged that the assessee has sought adjournment. The Revenue is not able to produce any record to show that the DVO’s report called for u/s.50(C)(2) of the Act has been produced. Without the said valuation report, admittedly the hearing of the assessee’s appeal would be in futility. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issue in the appeals are restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for re-adjudication after receipt of the valuation report by the DVO u/s.50(C)(2) of the Act.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 19th day of November, 2019 in Chennai.