K. Manjula v. The Income-tax Officer, Corporate Ward-4(3), Chennai
[Citation -2019-LL-0924-68]
| Citation | 2019-LL-0924-68 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | K. Manjula |
| Respondent Name | The Income-tax Officer, Corporate Ward-4(3), Chennai |
| Court | ITAT-Chennai |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 24/09/2019 |
| Assessment Year | 2013-14 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | quantum of capital gain • absence of evidence • sale of immovable property • value of property • sale deed • sale consideration • guideline value • reference to valuation officer • fair market value |
| Bot Summary: | After considering the submissions and verification of details 2 I.T.A. No. 1454/Chny/19 submitted by the assessee, the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Act in short was completed by determining the total income of the assessee at.2,62,12,767/- after computing taxable income from long term capital gains at.2,56,12,767/-. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the assessee summarily observing that the assessee has failed to substantiate the grounds of appeal by providing required evidence and justification, thereby upholding the quantum of long term capital gains as assessed by the Assessing Officer. 1,50,00,000/-, i.e., the value as per sale deed in respect of the said property as sale consideration for calculating long term capital gains, whereas, the assessee has not adopted the guideline value of the property for calculating the capital gains income. In view of the objection and specific request by the assessee, reference to the District Valuation Officer for valuing the said property was made and accordingly, the DVO estimated the fair market value at.3,96,53,000/-. Even though the Assessing Officer proposed the assessee for taking 50C value of the sale consideration, which was furnished by the Sub- Registrar under section 131 of the Act there was no mention that the valuation of the building after inspection of the said property by the Sub- Registrar was provided to the assessee or not. Counsel for the assessee has argued before the Bench that the assessee was not provided the detailed valuation report of the Sub-Registrar and moreover, he also contended that the assessee was not given suitable discount to the vacant land i.e., unbuilt area of the total land area sold along with the building since the vacant land is encumbered with the building while arriving the fair market value. Accordingly, we remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to give an opportunity to the assessee file reply against the inspection /valuation report of the sub-registrar and consider the objections of the assessee, if any, and also to consider any discount on the unbuilt 5 I.T.A. No. 1454/Chny/19 vacant land, if permits under the Act and decide the issue in accordance with law after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. |