Judgt. dt. 23.9.2020 in T.C.(A) 873/2017 PCIT V. Legal Heir of Dr.B.Sivanthi Adityan 1/5 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.9.2020 CORAM HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Tax Case (Appeal) No.873 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, No.121, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 600 034. Appellant Vs. Legal Heir of Dr.B.Sivanthi Adityan, 6, E.V.K.Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai 600 007. Respondent Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 19.4.2017 made in ITA No.2545/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanasamy Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) Revenue has filed this Tax Case under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act by raising following purported substantial questions of law arising from order passed by Income Tax http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 23.9.2020 in T.C.(A) 873/2017 PCIT V. Legal Heir of Dr.B.Sivanthi Adityan 2/5 Appellate Tribunal on 19.4.2017, for Assessment Year 2007- 2008:- "(i) Whether Tribunal is justified in directing Assessing Officer to follow provisions contained in section 50C(2) of Income Tax Act when provisions of section 50C are not applicable for Asst. Year 2007-08 since Joint Development Agreement as well as Power of Attorney were not registered and word assessable was inserted in section 50C only w.e.f. 01.10.2009? (ii) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law, ITAT was justified in directing AO to apply provisions of sec.50C(2) when that provisions is applicable, where assessee objects to adoption of guideline value as per sec.50C(1), whereas in case present case assessee wants adoption of guideline value by applying sec.50C(1) and thus decision of ITAT is contrary to provisions of IT Act? (iii) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law, ITAT was justified in not following http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 23.9.2020 in T.C.(A) 873/2017 PCIT V. Legal Heir of Dr.B.Sivanthi Adityan 3/5 binding decision of Jurisdictional HC in CIT Vs R. Sugantha Ravindran (352 ITR 488) wherein it was held that provisions of section 50C are not applicable prior to 01.10.2009 under similar situation? (iv) On similar set facts of case and in law, ITAT ought to have directed AO to adopt cost of construction incurred by Builder M/s.RMZ Infotech Pvt Ltd as full value of consideration by following ratio laid down in CIT Vs National Cooperative Federation of India Ltd (Del) 221 Taxman (Mag) 157?" 2. learned Senior Standing Counsel for Appellant/Revenue Mr.J.Narayanasamy fairly submits that in pursuance of remand order passed by learned Tribunal on 19.4.2017 for Assessment Year 2007-2008, vide para 8.1 of impugned order, present Appeal has been filed by Revenue, Assessing Authority has passed fresh orders on 17.10.2017 for Assessment Year 2007-2008 and therefore, present Appeal has become infructuous. 3. None has appeared on behalf of Respondent/Assessee. http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 23.9.2020 in T.C.(A) 873/2017 PCIT V. Legal Heir of Dr.B.Sivanthi Adityan 4/5 4. In view of aforesaid submission of learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for Appellant/Revenue, we dispose of Appeal having been rendered infructuous, leaving questions of law open and leaving it open to Assessee to take his recourse against order dated 17.10.2017 as permitted in law. With this observation, Appeal is disposed of. No costs. (V.K.,J.) (K.R.,J.) 23.9.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ssk. To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, No.121, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 600 034. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle, Chennai 600 034. http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 23.9.2020 in T.C.(A) 873/2017 PCIT V. Legal Heir of Dr.B.Sivanthi Adityan 5/5 DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. ssk. T.C.(A) No.873 of 2017 23.9.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Legal heir of B. Sivanthi Adityan