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

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.

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

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.

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.

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