LEELAVATHI RAVINDRANATHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 11(5), CHENNAI

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -13, Chennai, dated 05.01.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14.

Shri K. Balasubramanian, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee entered into an agreement for sale.

We heard Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The issue arises for consideration is that for determination of fair market value, whether guideline value on the date of agreement is to be taken into consideration or date of execution of sale deed? This issue was examined by this Tribunal in Upendra Maheshwari v. ITO in dated 05.01.2017. This Tribunal, in fact, found that the guideline value on the date of entering into agreement for sale has to be considered for the purpose of determination of fair market value under Section 50C of the Act. This decision of the Tribunal in Upendra Maheshwari (supra) was subsequently followed in M.C. Rajendran, one of the co-owners of the very same property. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the guideline value on the date of execution of agreement for sale has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing fair market value under Section 50C of the Act. Accordingly, the orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to compute fair market value under Section 50C of the Act on the date of execution of agreement.

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