M. Ramamurthy v. The Income-tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-3(2), Madurai
[Citation -2019-LL-0905-54]
| Citation | 2019-LL-0905-54 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | M. Ramamurthy |
| Respondent Name | The Income-tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-3(2), Madurai |
| Court | ITAT-Chennai |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 05/09/2019 |
| Assessment Year | 2007-08 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | sale consideration • guideline value • market value • capital gain • sale deed • on money • sale of property • loss on sale of share • reference to valuation officer • value of property |
| Bot Summary: | The notice of hearing was served on the assessee by RPAD. The Registry has placed on record the postal acknowledgement as proof of service of notice. Inspite of receiving the notice by RPAD, 2 I.T.A. No.1588/Chny/19 the assessee chose not to appear before this Tribunal when the appeal was taken up for hearing. 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 assessee never asked for making reference to the Valuation Officer. It is not the case of the assessee that the market value of the property was less than the guideline value. 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. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. |