Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai

V.N. Devadiss, Chennai vs Dcwt, Chettur on 31 May, 2017

                  आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'डी'        यायपीठ, चे नई।
            IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                      'D' BENCH: CHENNAI

                           ी जॉज माथन,     या यक सद य एवं
                     ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद य के सम!

   BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND
    SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                           WTA No.48/Mds/2016
                    नधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2005-06


Shri V.N.Devadoss,                          Vs.   The Dy. Commissioner of
No.333, Poonamallee High Road,                    Income Tax, Central Circle-
Amaindakarai,                                     I(3), Chennai-600 034.
Chennai-600 029.


[PAN: AAFPD 4228 E]

(अपीलाथ$/Appellant)                                (%&यथ$/Respondent)


अपीलाथ$ क' ओर से/ Appellant by               :    Mr.Tharish.V, CA
%&यथ$ क' ओर से /Respondent by                :    Mr.Milind Madhukar Bhusari,
                                                                        CIT
सुनवाई क' तार ख/Date of Hearing              :    30.05.2017
घोषणा क' तार ख /Date of Pronouncement        :    31.05.2017


                                  आदे श / O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, in WTA No.1 & 2/13- 14 dated 01.09.2016 for the AY 2005-06. WTA No.48/Mds/2016

:- 2 -:

2. Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Tharish.V, Advocate represented on behalf of the assessee.

3. It was a submission that the assessee was the owner of the urban land consisting of 87120 sq.ft. at Mogappair Village, Chennai. When the assessee filed his returns, the assessee has adopted the rates for the land as per the guideline value prescribed at Rs.458/- per sft. From the said amount, the assessee had claimed the deduction of 40% as the said land was undeveloped land. It was a submission that the guideline value prescribed at Rs.458/- per sft. was in respect of developed lands. It was a submission that AO did not accept the contention of the assessee and did not allow the deduction of 40% claimed by the assessee. It was a submission that the assessee had claimed 40% deduction in the value on account of the civic amenities percentage required to be left when developing large tract of land. It was a submission that the land was nearly 2 acres and it was a single piece of land and if the same was developed then the assessee would have to leave about 40% of the land for civic amenities. It was a submission that the Ld.CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee. It was a further submission that subsequently the assessee had sold the said land at Rs.310/- per sft. in subsequent year which was as claimed by the assessee after reducing the 40% from the guideline value. It was a submission that the assessee may be granted benefit of deduction @40% as claimed.

:- 3 -:

4. In reply, Ld.CIT/DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and Ld.CIT(A). It was a submission that the land was a single piece of land, admittedly undeveloped. It was a submission that the land was situated at Mogappair Village and for the purpose of valuation the guideline value prescribed was liable to be taken in its entirety.

5. We have considered the rival submissions. The urban land under consideration is undeveloped property. Admittedly, the area is nearly 2 acres. It is also an admitted fact that as per the civic amenities Rules, 40% of the land would have to be kept aside for civic amenities such as roads, parks, etc. Also considering the submission of the Ld.AR that in the subsequent year the assessee has sold the said land at Rs.310/- per sft.

and capital gains offered on the same and has been accepted by the Revenue, though, it must be mentioned here that the details of the Sale Deed or return copies have not been placed before us, in the interest of the natural justice, the assessee is held to be entitled to the deduction of 40% from the guideline value in respect of the valuation of the said urban land.

:- 4 -:

6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31st May, 2017, at Chennai.

               Sd/-                                     Sd/-
        (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी)                           (जॉज माथन)
  (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY)                            (GEORGE MATHAN)
लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                   या यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER


चे नई/Chennai,
/दनांक/Dated: 31st May, 2017.
TLN

आदे श क' % त1ल2प अ3े2षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ$/Appellant                     4. आयकर आयु4त/CIT
2. %&यथ$/Respondent                      5. 2वभागीय % त न ध/DR
3. आयकर आयु4त (अपील)/CIT(A)              6. गाड फाईल/GF