Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D/“SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI
आदेश / O R D E R
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-4, Chennai dated 17.08.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2013-14.
The assessee has raised the following grounds for adjudication.
For that the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring written submissions filed by the appellant in this regard and thus erroneously confirmed the addition of Interest Income amounting to Rs.2,93,2341-stating that the same was not contested by the assessee. 3. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the stamp value as sale consideration as per Section 50C of the Act. 4. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the ground raised
by the appellant pertaining to re- computation of deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act on account of change in capital gains or investment made.
5. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in enhancing the assessment u/s 251(1) by disallowing the investment u/s 54F of the Act of Rs.20,00,000/-.
6. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the AD to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the above enhancement.
7. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the ground pertaining to levy of interest u/s 234A in consequence to the addition made by the AO.
8. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the ground pertaining to levy of interest u/s 234B in consequence to the addition made by the AO.
The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee’s father Shri M. D. Raghupathy and Shri A. Venkatesh jointly purchased a vacant land measuring 1.00 acres comprised in S.No. 112/lA and 112/1B at No. 54, Sooropattu Village, Madhavaram Taluk, Tiruvallur district vide sale deed dated 20.03.1997 for a consideration of `2,00,000/-. The assessee inherited 50% share of the property along with Smt. R. Rajeswari and Smt. Mamta Raghupathy on 28.11.2003.
The above mentioned property was sold on 10.12.2012 for a total consideration of `4,00,00,000/-. The assessee received `66,66,666/- on account of his share (1/3rd of 50%) in the property.As per the official website of Tamil Nadu Registration Department, the guide line value of the sold property on the date of sale was `6,54,00,000/-.
3.1 The assessee raised objections, for adopting this value as the sale consideration received under the provisions of Section 50C. Case was referred to the District Valuation Authority. Vide letter dated 10.03.2016, the DVO stated that the Stamp Duty Valuation was objected before the first appellate authority (DRO (Stamps)) under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Duty Act and hence the reference of this case under Section 50C seems to be invalid. Under these circumstances, as per the provisions of Section 50C of the Income tax Act, 1961, the guide line value as on the date of sale is being adopted as the sale consideration received, subject to outcome of appeal pending before the first appellate authority under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Duty Act. The ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act on 11.09.2014 by making certain additions, among which an addition of `37,56,602/- to the income of assessee under the head “capital gains” by adopting the guideline value of the property u/s.50C of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) was confirmed the action of the ld. Assessing Officer. Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), now the assessee is in appeal before Tribunal.
The assessee filed a letter dated 11.10.2017 seeking to admit the additional grounds of appeal before this Tribunal. In that letter, the assessee stated that the failure to raise these grounds before the CIT(A) was due to inadvertence. The assessee further pleaded that this omission is not intentional and craves the leave of the Tribunal to admit these additional grounds.
The Learned Assessing Officer erred in relying on the District Valuation Officer’s reply that an appeal was filed u/s 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Duty Act and consequently the reference to the DVO is not maintainable, when on fact no such appeal was made by the assessee.
The Learned Assessing Officer, upheld the Guideline Value of `6,54,00,000/- without giving reference to the provisions of Section 50C(2).
I have gone through the petition seeking admission of additional grounds. In my opinion, the assessee is having good and sufficient reasons not to raise the additional grounds on earlier occasion before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, these two additional grounds are admitted for adjudication.
In addition to this, the assessee filed additional evidences under Rule-29 of the Income Tax (Appelalte Proceedings) Rules as follows.
“i) A copy of letter dated 13.09.2017 received under the Right to Information Act, from the Public Information Officer, Sub Registrar Office, Ambattur. ii) Affidavit stating that no appeal was filed u/s.47A(1) of the Indian Stamp duty Act.” Before us, ld.A.R prayed that these evidences are not available on earlier occasion and through RTI Act, this information was got from the Public Information Officer, Sub registrar Office, Ambattur vide letter dated 13.09.2017 and prayed that these evidences are very crucial to decide the issue and to be admitted.
I have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. I have gone through the petition seeking to admit additional evidences. In my opinion, these documents are not available at the time of deciding the case by the Ld.CIT(A) and these documents were received through a letter dated 13.09.2017 under the Right to Information Act. Accordingly, these additional evidences are admitted for adjudication.