M.RAMAMURTHY,MADURAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-3(2), MADURAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1588/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 September 2019AY 2007-083 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if the guideline value is higher than the sale consideration, the guideline value must be adopted for computing capital gains as per Section 50C of the Act. The assessee did not dispute the guideline value or claim it was less than the market value.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold a property along with two others and claimed a loss. The Assessing Officer found that the guideline value on the date of sale was significantly higher than the sale consideration.

What were the issues?

Whether the guideline value should be adopted for computing capital gains when it exceeds the sale consideration, as per Section 50C of the Income-tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT
Hearing: 27.08.2019Pronounced: 05.09.2019

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Madurai, dated 01.03.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2007-08.

2.

The notice of hearing was served on the assessee by RPAD.

The Registry has placed on record the postal acknowledgement as proof of service of notice. Inspite of receiving the notice by RPAD, the assessee chose not to appear before this Tribunal when the appeal was taken up for hearing. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose the appeal on merit.

3.

Ms. R. Anitha, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee sold a property for ₹1,01,00,000/- along with two other persons and claimed loss of ₹47,302/- with respect to his share. According to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer found that on the date of execution of sale deed, the guideline value was ₹1,92,00,000/-. By adopting the provisions of Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), according to the Ld. D.R., the 1/3rd share of the assessee was taken as ₹67,333/- and accordingly, the capital gain was computed. According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee never asked for making reference to the Valuation Officer.

4.

Having heard the Ld. D.R., we have gone through the orders of both the authorities below including the material available on record. It is not the case of the assessee that the market value of the property was less than the guideline value. It appears that the assessee claimed before the lower authorities that there was no on money payment received by the assessee. It is not a question of receipt of on money payment. It is a question of value of the property on the date of sale. If the guideline value was more than the sale consideration on the date of execution of sale deed, then in view of Section 50C of the Act, the guideline value has to be taken for the purpose of computing capital gain. Since the Assessing Officer has adopted the guideline value as provided in Section 50C of the Act, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the court on 5th September, 2019 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →