Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony
आदेश / O R D E R
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore dated 31.03.2017 in for the assessment year 2007-08 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s.144 & 147 of the Act.
The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal and they are reproduced herein below for reference:- “1. The order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore dated 31.03.2017 in I,T.A.No.93/2015-16 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case.
2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the validity of the re- assessment completed in terms of section 144 read with section 147 of the Act on 30.03.2015 without assigning proper reasons and justification.
3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of re- assessment under, consideration was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law.
4. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the non service of notice on the partnership firm/appellant would vitiate the consequential re-assessment order and ought to have appreciated that the misconstruction of the provisions of section 292 BB of the Act would further vitiate the findings on sustaining the validity of the re-assessment from para 4.0 of the impugned order.
5. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in any event having not passed the re-assessment order in the PAN of the partnership firm (the re-assessment was passed in the PAN of the Partner), the consequential re-assessment was bad in law.
6. CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the objections filed vide dated 9.3.2015 and 17.2.2015 were not disposed of especially overlooking the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case reported in 259 ITR 19.
The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that on merits, the distress sale would vitiate the mechanical application of the stamp duty value as sale consideration u/s 50C of the Act in the computation of Long Term Capital Gains and ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act were completely overlooked and brushed aside.
The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles natural justice would be nullity in law.
The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm which was dissolved subsequent to the relevant assessment year. It was found by the Revenue that the assessee firm had sold its immovable property consisting of 17 cents of land and workshop building for Rs.12,17,900/- on 21.02.2007 vide document No.200700931 in SRO Ganapathy. It was further revealed that the guideline value of the property was Rs.27 lakhs, thereby attracting provisions of Section 50C of the Act.
Thereafter notice U/s.148 was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2014 and the assessment was framed U/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act, on 30.03.2015, wherein the Ld.AO assessed the long term capital gain of the assessee at Rs.26,47,062/-. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the Ld.AO.
At the outset, the Ld.AR argued before us by stating that the assessee was not given opportunity U/s.50C(2) of the Act, wherein the Ld.AO ought to have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer for ascertaining the value of the immovable property sold by the assessee. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld.AO to consider the issue afresh after obtaining the valuation report from the Valuation Officer. The Ld.DR strongly opposed to the submission of the Ld.AR and pleaded for sustaining the order of the Ld.Revenue Authorities.
I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials available on record. From the facts of the case it is apparent that the Ld.Revenue Authorities had not referred the matter to the Valuation Officer for valuing the property though the assessee has challenged the valuation before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee was also irresponsible by not co-operating before the Ld.AO. However, in the interest of justice, I remit back the matter
5 to the file of Ld.AO to consider the issue afresh after obtaining valuation report of the property sold by the assessee from the Valuation Officer. I also caution the assessee to promptly co- operate with the Ld. Revenue Authorities in their proceedings in order to expedite their respective Orders failing which they are at liberty to pass appropriate Orders in accordance with law and merits.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.
Order pronounced on 09th October, 2017 at Chennai.