IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B , BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI S.K.YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT No.1323(Bang) 2016 (Assessment year : 2012-13) Shri G.S.Sathyanarayana Gupta, No.165/166, 1st Cross, 5th Main, APMC Yard, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore -560 022 Pan No.AHLPS2459R Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2) (4), Bangalore Respondent Assessee by : Shri C. Sandeep, CA Revenue by : Shri AR Sreenivasan, JCIT Date of hearing : 04-08-2016 Date of pronouncement: : 17-10-2016 ORDER PER SHRI A.K.GARODIA, AM This is assessee s appeal directed against order of ld. CIT(A)-6, dated 25-04-2016 for assessment year 2012-13. 2. grounds raised by assessee are as under; 2 IT(TP)A No.1323(B)2016 1. That order of ld.CIT(A) in so far is prejudicial to interest of appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against facts and circumstances of case. 2. That ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that value of consideration received by appellant is Rs.2,91,98,930/- instead of Rs.2 crore. 3. That ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that market value of land transferred to developer should not be taken as consideration applying principles lad down in S.50D of Act. 4. That ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in considering guidance value of built up area received as part of sale consideration even though it does not exist on date entering into agreement. 5. That ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in computing 20% in excess of guidance value of built up area received as sale consideration on ground that it is commercial property. Each of above ground is prejudice to one another, appellant craves leave of Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore o add, delete, amend or modify otherwise either before or at time of hearing of appeal . 3. It was submitted by ld.AR of assessee that issue in dispute is covered in favour of assessee by Tribunal order rendered in case of ACIT Vs Smt Sarojini M Kushe in ITA No.989/Bang/2014 dated 27-04-2016, copy available on page 1 to 5 of 3 IT(TP)A No.1323(B)2016 paper book. He also placed reliance on Tribunal order rendered in case of ACIT Vs Shankar Vital Motor Co. Ltd in ITA No.35/Bang/2015 dated 18-03-2016, copy available on pages 6-15 of paper book. Reliance was also placed on judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court rendered in case of CKIT Vs T. K. Dayalu reported in 60 DTR 403(Kar.) and copy available on pages 16-18 of paper book. 4. ld. Dr of revenue supported orders of authorities below. 5. We have considered rival submissions. In present case, AO has adopted guidance value fixed by State Government for (to be constructed flats) or (to be acquired flats) which were not in existence on date of joint development agreement (JDA). In case of ACIT Vs Smt. Sarojini M Kushe (Supra), Tribunal decided issue in favour of assessee by following another Tribunal order rendered in case of ACIT Vs Shankar Vittal Motor Co. Ltd. (Supra) and observed that it was held in that case that at time of signing JDA, capital gain has to be computed only on guidance value of land and therefore, action of AO in adopting guidance value for built up area to be received by assessee is not proper and this cannot be approved. However, since guidance value of land being transferred by assessee on date of signing of JDA is not available on record., we feel it proper to restore matter back to file 4 IT(TP)A No.1323(B)2016 of AO with direction that AO should re-compute amount of capital gain by adopting guidance value of land in question at time of signing of JDA after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. We order accordingly. 6. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on date mentioned on caption page. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Place: Bangalore: D t e d : 17.10.2016 am* Copy to : 1 Appellant 2 Respondent 3 CIT(A)-II Bangalore 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6 Guard file By order AR, ITAT, Bangalore 5 IT(TP)A No.1323(B)2016 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. , , DATE ON WHICH TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE DICTATING MEMBER .. 3. . / DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO PS/Sr.PS . 4. DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. . / . . DATE ON WHICH ORDER COMES BACK TO PS/Sr.PS .. 6 DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. , IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH REASON FOR DOING SO . 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO BENCH CLERK .. 9. / DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX &ENDORSEMENT 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 11. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON ORDER . 12. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO DESPATCH SECTION FOR DESPATCH OF TRIBUNAL ORDER 13. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER . G.S.Sathyanarayana Gupta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-6(2) (4), Bangalore