Madras High Court
M/S.Jagannathan Sailaja Chitta vs The Income Tax Officer on 15 February, 2019
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :: 15-02-2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
T.C.A.No.142 of 2019
M/s.Jagannathan Sailaja Chitta ... Appellant
-vs-
The Income Tax Officer,
International Taxation 2 (2),
Chennai - 34. ... Respondent
Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961,
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench,
dated 27.09.2017, passed in ITA No.1207/Mds/2017.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Sivaraman
For Respondent : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan,
Senior Standing Counsel,
assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh,
Standing Counsel.
1 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.Vineet Kothari,J.)
The Assessee, namely, M/s.Jagannathan Sailaja Chitta,
Chennai, has filed this Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax
Act,1961, in short, 'Act', assailing the order passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, in short, 'Tribunal' on 27.09.2017 in
I.T.A.No.1207/Mds.2017, against the Assessee for the Assessment Year
2012-2013, whereby the learned Tribunal upheld the order of the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in short, 'CIT (A)', holding that the
'Guidance Value' as per Section 50C of the Act, as determined by the State
Government, could be adopted as the 'Fair Market Value' for sale
consideration for imposition of Capital Gains Tax on the Assessee on the
sale of property by her during the relevant Assessment Year.
2. The Appellant/Assessee has raised the following Substantial
Questions of Law :
(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
was justified in adopting the fair market value under
Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, without
2 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
considering the objections of the Assessee with regard
to fair market value of the property sold by the
Assessee during the relevant Assessment Year 2012-
2013, based on the report of the Departmental
Valuation Officer as well as against the presumptive
value of the capital asset as per Section 50C of the
Act ?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Appellate Authorities
themselves could decide the objections of the Assessee
or should have remitted the matter back to the
Assessing Authority for the said purpose ?”
3. The Assessee also claimed exemption under Section 54F of
the Act on account of reinvestment of the sale consideration in acquisition
of the new property.
4. The issue raised before this Court in the present appeal by
the learned counsel for the Assessee is that the sale consideration of the
property in question, as disclosed by the Assessee, was Rs.17,09,80,000/- in
the three 'Documents of Sale' executed in the year 2011, the details of
which are given in Paragraph 5 of the order of the Tribunal, showing that
for the sale consideration of Rs.17,09,80,000/-, the value adopted by the
3 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
Stamp Value Authority was Rs.19,70,85,992/- as per Section 50C of the Act
and thus a difference amount of Rs.2,61,05,992/- was added to levy Capital
Gains Tax by CIT (A) for the first time and without considering the
question of Section 54F , the said valuation under Section 50C was adopted
by CIT (A), which was upheld by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The
Tribunal, however, gave relief under Section 54F of the Act in the said
valuation under Section 50C of the Act.
5. Learned counsel for the Assessee, relying upon a decision of
the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v.
Khoobsurat Resorts (P) Ltd., (2012) 28 Taxmann.com 93 (Delhi), has
submitted that the Assessee had raised objections against the higher
valuation and sought for fresh valuation of the said property by his letter,
dated 10.03.2015, under Section 142A of the Act from Departmental
Valuation Officer (DVO), but, since the assessment was getting time barred,
the assessment was completed by the Assessing Authority on 30.03.2015,
adopting the aforesaid stamp duty valuation on 'Guidance Value' and on
which the difference of stamp duty was even paid by the Buyer and when
4 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
the matter was taken before CIT (A), thereafter, for the first time, before
CIT (A) only, the Assessing Authority produced the said Departmental
Valuation Officer (DVO)'s Report, valuing the said property at even still
higher amount of Rs.27,36,04,000/-. The Assessee raised objections before
CIT (A) against such higher valuation and the same, as quoted in the order,
dated 27.03.2017, of the learned CIT (A), are as follows :
Objections of Assessee :
“The following aspects of the property brought
down its value as compared to the Stamp Duty Value for
retail plots adopted by the stamp duty authority :
5. ECR Link Road was sluggish and the
connecting roads to ECR were not complete and were in
progress during the year of sale. These Road were
completed fully only during 2012-13. Hence adopting
the value of fully completed connected roads with that of
unconnected roads for computing the stamp value is
incorrect.
6. There were no housing project and
commercial project started up to 2012 on either side of
ECR Link Road. It is to state that there were open lands
only. Hence the place was completely underdeveloped.
However the values adopted were of retail plots after the
5 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
land was developed which is unfair.
7. The guideline rate published by government
from 2007 to 2012 was Rs.1000/- per sq. feet all through
these years. The guideline was revised upwards at the
end of 2012 and the rate specified is Rs.1500/- per
square feet in the said location. Hence the value before
2012 should be adopted.
8. The entire parcel of land to the extent of 3.32
acres was sold by three sale deeds at the same date -
28th April 2011. The land being underdeveloped the
guideline rate prescribed by the government for the
developed saleable land cannot be a yard-stick for
valuing the underdeveloped large parcel of land.
II. In this regard we reply on the decision of the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Khoobsurat
Resorts (P.) Ltd. (2012) 28 taxmann.com 93. It was
held in para 15 as under :
'This court is of the opinion that the
express provision of Section 50-C enabling the
revenue to treat the value declared by an
assessee for payment of stamp duty, ipso fact,
cannot be a legitimate ground for concluding
that there was undervaluation, in the
acquisition of immovable property. If
parliamentary intention was to enable such a
6 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
finding, a provision akin to Section 50-C would
have been included in the statute book, to
assess income on the basis of a similar fiction
in the case of the assessee who acquires such
an asset. No doubt, the declaration of a higher
cost for acquisition for stamp duty might be the
starting point for an inquiry in that regard; that
inquiry might extend to analyzing sale or
transfer contemporaneously at the time of
transaction. Yet, the finding cannot start and
conclude with the fact that such stamp duty
value or basis is higher than the consideration
mentioned in the deed. The compulsion for
such higher value, is the mandate of the
Stamp Act, and provisions which levy stamp
duty at pre-determined or notified dates. In the
present case, the revenue did not rely on any
objection fact or circumstances; consequently,
the Court holds that there is no infirmity in the
approach of the lower authorities and the
Tribunal, granting relief to the assessee. This
question is accordingly answered in favour of
the assessee, and against the revenue.'
III. Without prejudice to the above, the difference
between the value adopted by the appellant and the
Stamp Valuer is Rs.18052 per square feet which is only
15% of the guideline value. Considering the larger size
of the land, the margin of 15% can be allowed since the
value of retail plots was adopted as comparable.
Findings of CIT (Appeals) :
7 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
The appellant's above contentions along with
reliance on case laws referred above have been
carefully considered. I find that the case laws referred
are squarely distinguishable on facts and accordingly,
the appeal is adjudicated on this issue. The appellant
has raised the ground of appeal that the AO has erred in
adding Rs.2,61,05,992/- as the difference between the
sale consideration shown and the value adopted by the
stamp value authority u/s.50C in computing capital
gains. The AR contended that when the AO issued Show
Cause notice as to why the difference between the sale
consideration shown and the value adopted by the stamp
value authority should not be added back, in a reply to
the Show Cause Notice, the appellant has submitted that
for the purpose of stamp duty, there was a dispute
between the buyer and the State Government and only
at the time of assessment proceedings, the assessee
came to know that the buyer had paid some extra
stamp duty to get the registration completed. However,
when the sale deed was executed, the consideration
money as stated in the sale deed was only received.
Hence, substituting the stamp value as the sale
consideration will be a gross injustice. During the
assessment proceedings, the assessee has requested AO
vide letter dated 10.03.2015 to carry out the valuation of
8 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
the property by valuation officer u/s.142A of the Act.
However, the assessment was getting time barred on
31.03.2015 and by that time the valuation report was not
received by the AO. Accordingly, the AO considered the
sale consideration of the property at 50C value and
computed LTCG. Therefore, the difference of sale
consideration as shown in the sale deed and the 50C
value of the property was added in computing the LTCG.
The appellant has filed the appeal against the order by
raising the grounds of appeal supra on the issue.
During the appeal proceedings, the AO has further
forwarded the valuation report dated 15.07.2015
determining the value of the property at 27,36,04,000/-
of the valuation officer. The copy of the valuation report
dated 15.07.2015 was handed over to the AR for his
comment on the issue. The AR contended that they have
raised objection before the DVO. Thereafter, the DVO
has passed the valuation report dated 15.07.2015
valuating the property at Rs.27,36,04,000/- and the
order of the DVO is incorrect and cannot be adopted as
it exceeds the stamp duty value. I have given careful
consideration to the assessee's objection (sic !) raised
before the DVO. From the valuation report, it is
apparent that the DVO has given careful consideration
9 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
to the assessee's objection raised before him and
accordingly arrived to a value of the property at
Rs.27,36,04,000/-. Moreover, statute provision of
sec.50C (2) r.w.s. 50C (3) has a mandate that subject to
the provision contained in sub-section (2), where the
value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the
value adopted or assessed or assessable by the Stamp
Valuation Authority referred to in sub-section (1), the
value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such
authority shall be taken as the full value of the
consideration received or accruing as a result of the
transfer. Accordingly, I confirm the action of the
assessing officer adopting 50C value of the property as
the sale consideration for computing the capital gain.
The ground of appeal on this issue is dismissed.”
6. The Assessee insisted before CIT (A) that sale value
declared in the sale deed was the fair market value of the property in
question and, therefore, not only the valuation given by the Departmental
Valuation Officer could not be adopted for imposition of Capital Gains Tax
nor the presumptive value under Section 50-C of the Act could be so
adopted.
7. From the above quoted portions of the order of CIT (A), it
10 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
appears that CIT (A) had neither himself considered the objections of the
Assessee in detail nor did he choose to remit the matter back to the
Assessing Officer on that issue. Instead, the learned CIT (A) chose to
observe that since the Departmental Valuation Officer had 'carefully'
considered the objections of the Assessee and accordingly arrived at the
value of Rs.27,36,04,000/-, but he would still approve the 'Guidance Value'
under Section 50C of the Act, to be adopted by the Assessing Authority for
computing the Capital Gains Tax liability of the Assessee. The Tribunal
also dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in this regard and upheld the
'Guidance Value' as determined by the State Government for stamp duty
purposes as 'Fair Market Value' and thus upheld the addition of
Rs.2,61,05,992/- in the declared sale value of the asset in the Sale Deeds.
The Tribunal, thus, adopted the said Fair Market Value under Section 50C
of the Act and directed the Assessing Authority to compute the relief under
Section 54F of the Act accordingly. The relevant Paragraphs 7.5 and 7.6 of
the order of the Tribunal, dated 27.09.2017, are quoted below for ready
reference :
11 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
“7.5 With regard to full value of consideration as a
result of transfer of a capital asset, the provisions of
section 48 of the Act is very clear that the income
chargeable under the head "Capital gains" shall be
computed, by deducting from the full value of the
consideration received or accruing as a result of the
transfer of the capital asset. In this case, as per section
50C(1) of the Act, where the consideration received by
the assessee as a result of transfer of a capital asset,
being land, building or both, is less than the value
adopted or assessed by an authority of State
Government [Stamp Valuation Authority] for the
purpose of stamp duty, the value so assessed shall, for
the purpose of section 48 of the Act, be deemed to be the
full value of consideration received on such transfer.
Thus, the full value adopted for the purpose of
computation of capital gain tax as per the provisions of
section 45 r.w. section 50C of the Act was at
Rs.19,70,85,992/-, as determined by the Stamp Value
Authority. In the same scenario, for claiming the
exemption under section 54F of the Act from the capital
gain chargeable under section 45 of the Act, the full
value on transfer of asset should also be the same as
determined by the Stamp Value Authority and not less
than that. As explained in CIT v. Citi Bank N.A. [2003]
261 ITR 570 (Bom), the different provisions of Chapter
IV-E of the Act form part of one integrated code. The
same are to be read harmoniously and not disjointedly. A
deeming provision, it is trite law, is to be read in light of
the object of the provision and, further, is to be taken to
its logical end. When, for the purpose of computation
under section 48 of the Act, the full value of
consideration was taken as per section 50C of the Act,
the Assessing Officer was not justified in adopting the
sale consideration as admitted in the sale deed viz.,
Rs.17,09,80,000/-. Similar view has also been taken by
the Tribunal in ITO v. Kondal Reddy Mandal Reddy in
12 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
I.T.A. No. 848/Hyd/2015 dated 13.05.2016.
7.6 In view of the foregoing, we direct the
Assessing Officer to adopt the full value on transfer of
asset as was determined under the provisions of section
50C of the Act, viz., Rs.19,70,85,992/- for allowing the
claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act.
Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is
allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to
recompute the taxable income after allowing the claim
of exemption under section 54F of the Act.”
8. Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel
for the Revenue, supported the impugned order of the Tribunal and urged
that the Assessing Authority and also the Appellate Authorities were bound
to adopt the valuation given as per 'Guidance Value' under Section 50C of
the Act and that the Assessing Authority did not have any discretion in the
matter in this regard.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given
our due consideration to the rival submissions and also the material
available on record.
10. Section 50C of the Act, as it now stands after its
13 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
amendment by Finance Act, 2018, with effect from 01.04.2019, adding
Third Proviso to Section 50C (1), is quoted below for ready reference:
“50C. Special provision for full value of consideration
in certain cases. — (1) Where the consideration
received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an
assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or
both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or
assessable by any authority of a State Government
(hereafter in this section referred to as the -stamp
valuation authority) for the purpose of payment of stamp
duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or
assessed or assessable shall, for the purposes of section
48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration
received or accruing as a result of such transfer.
Provided that where the date of the agreement
fixing the amount of consideration and the date of
registration for the transfer of the capital asset are not
the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by
the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement
may be taken for the purposes of computing full value of
consideration for such transfer:
Provided further that the first proviso shall apply
only in a case where the amount of consideration, or a
part thereof, has been received by way of an account
payee cheque or account payee bank draft or by use of
electronic clearing system through a bank account, on
or before the date of the agreement for transfer.
Provided also that where the value adopted or
14 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority
does not exceed one hundred and five percent of the
consideration received or accruing as a result of the
transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a
result of the transfer shall, for the purposes of section
48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration.”
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-
section (1), where—
(a) the assessee claims before any Assessing
Officer that the value adopted or assessed or
assessable] by the stamp valuation authority under sub-
section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property
as on the date of transfer;
(b) the value so adopted or assessed or
assessable] by the stamp valuation authority under sub-
section (1) has not been disputed in any appeal or
revision or no reference has been made before any other
authority, court or the High Court,
the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the
capital asset to a Valuation Officer and where any such
reference is made, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3),
(4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section
(1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-
section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and
section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957),
shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to
such reference as they apply in relation to a reference
made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of
section 16A of that Act.
Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section,
-''Valuation Officer'' shall have the same meaning as in
15 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of
1957).
Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section,
the expression -''assessable'' means the price which the
stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any other law for
the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were
referred to such authority for the purposes of the
payment of stamp duty.
(3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-
section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-
section (2) exceeds the value adopted 1 [or assessed or
assessable] by the stamp valuation authority referred to
in sub-section (1), the value so adopted 1 [or assessed or
assessable] by such authority shall be taken as the full
value of the consideration received or accruing as a
result of the transfer.”
11. The Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT v. Khoobsurat
Resorts (P.) Ltd., referred to above, dealing with a similar question held in
our respectful opinion rightly and we fully agree with the same, that the
provisions of Section 50C of the Act only enable the Revenue to adopt the
Guidance Value declared by the State for payment of stamp duty, as the Fair
Market Value under Section 48 of the Act. But, that Guidance Value cannot,
ipso facto, be taken as the valuation for the purpose of computing Capital
Gains Tax liability in the hands of the assessee/seller. Sub-section (2) of
16 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
Section 50C of the Act itself provides for reference to Departmental
Valuation Officer if the Assessee objects to invoking of Section 50C (1) of
the Act. The relevant Paragraph 15 of the said judgment is quoted below for
ready reference :
“15. This Court is of the opinion that the express
provision of Section 50-C enabling the revenue to treat
the value declared by an assessee for payment of stamp
duty, ipso facto, cannot be a legitimate ground for
concluding that there was undervaluation, in the
acquisition of immovable property. If Parliamentary
intention was to enable such a finding, a provision akin
to Section 50-C would have been included in the statute
book, to assess income on the basis of a similar fiction
in the case of the assessee who acquires such an asset.
No doubt, the declaration of a higher cost for
acquisition for stamp duty might be the starting point
for an inquiry in that regard; that inquiry might extend
to analyzing sale or transfer deeds executed in respect
of ITA 776/2011 Page 12 similar or neighbouring
properties, contemporaneously at the time of the
transaction. Yet, the finding cannot start and conclude
with the fact that such stamp duty value or basis is
higher than the consideration mentioned in the deed.
17 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
The compulsion for such higher value, is the mandate of
the Stamp Act, and provisions which levy stamp duty at
pre-determined or notified dates. In the present case,
the revenue did not rely on any objective fact or
circumstances; consequently, the Court holds that there
is no infirmity in the approach of the lower authorities
and the Tribunal, granting relief to the assesse. This
question is accordingly answered in favour of the
assessee, and against the revenue.”
12. In our considered opinion also, the Assessee's objections
against higher valuation by DVO as well as in terms of Section 50C of the
Act were never dealt with by any of the authorities including the Appellate
Authorities in the present case, firstly because, the objections could be
raised by the Assessee only before CIT (A), as the Assessing Authority
adopted the valuation as per Section 50C of the Act and produced Report of
DVO only before CIT (A). Even though a reference was made to the
Departmental Valuation Officer a few days prior to completion of
assessment on 30.03.2015 in terms of Section 50C (2) of the Act, since the
DVO's Report did not come forth before the assessment could be completed,
the same was confronted by the assessee for the first time only before CIT
(A). The objections raised by the assessee were never really considered by
18 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
CIT (A) nor did he choose to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer
for that purpose. Thus, the presumptive value under Section 50C of the Act
giving rise to the additions to the extent of Rs.2,61,05,992/- to the declared
sale value, as disclosed by the assessee, was adopted by the Appellate
Authorities, without meeting the objections of the assessee at all. As such,
the presumption under Section 50C (1) of the Act, even though rebuttable in
law, was never allowed to be rebutted by the Assessee at all. The so called
'careful consideration' of objections by CIT (A) or by DVO himself is not
borne out at all on record and, therefore, nothing can be said about that.
But, in any case, the consideration of objections of the Assessee by the
Assessing/Appellate Authorities was a must to be undertaken exercise. But,
that was not done. In other words, the Departmental authorities failed to
meet the objections of the Assessee, which were raised before CIT (A) for
the first time at the appeal stage, but were never overruled by a speaking
order and the Guidance Valuation as per Section 50C (1) of the Act was
taken as a Gospel Truth against the disclosed and declared value of the sale
by the Assessee. This was not permitted in law.
13. Why 'Guidance Value' under Section 50C (1) of the Act
19 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
should not be taken as a Gospel Truth and why Section 50C (2) provided for
reference to DVO in case an objection is raised by Assessee has another
reason too. The 'Guidance Value' fixed for stamp duty purposes is fixed by
the authority concerned, taking into account the location, current market
price of property in particular area etc., as a standard measure to iron out the
differences of personal factors, such as, sale in distress for meeting financial
emergency, sale to related parties and a host of such other factors. But, in
Income Tax Act, the concept of levy of tax on ''real income'' exists.
Therefore, Capital Gains Tax can also be levied on 'real' capital gains and
not on the presumptive capital gains. The need to determine a Fair Market
Value upon a fact finding exercise is a sine qua non. But, such fact finding
exercise by the Departmental authorities, be that Assessing Authority or
even the Appellate Authority, was not really undertaken in the present case
and that is where, failure and miscarriage of justice has occurred.
14. It would be an insult to the honest tax payer to adopt an
assumed higher market value to impose Capital Gains Tax without allowing
him or her an opportunity to rebut even the legal presumption under Section
50C (1) of the Act, even though law itself provides for a further fact finding
20 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
exercise to be undertaken by reference to DVO under Section 50C (2) of the
Act and thereupon meeting the objections of the Assessee and allowing him
full opportunity to prove that the value declared in the sale deeds is the true
and fair Market Value of the Capital Asset and the actual consideration
received by him and, therefore, Capital Gains Tax can be imposed only on
that basis.
15. It is undoubted that both the Appellate Authority and the
Assessing Authority, in law, had powers of a Civil Court also vide Section
131 of the Act and, therefore, the Valuation Report of Departmental
Valuation Officer as well as the presumption under Section 50C of the Act
about the Fair Market Value has to be treated as an evidence or a legal
presumption, which is open to be rebutted by the Assessee in accordance
with law.
16. A bare reading of Scheme of Section 50C of the Act would
show that Assessee can object to presumptive value as per Section 50C (1)
and, therefore, it is only after hearing the objections of the Assessee, the
Fair Market Value of the Capital Asset as per 'Guidance Value' can be
determined by the authorities. The Assessee cannot be denied an
21 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
opportunity to raise his objections even against the presumptive Fair Market
Value under Section 50C (1) of the Act or Report of DVO under Section
50C (2) of the Act and the Assessing Authority or the Appellate Authorities,
whose powers are co-extensive with those of the Assessing Authority,
cannot refuse to meet those objections point by point.
17. The Fair Assessment Procedure under the scheme of
assessment in the Income Tax Act has it at the root the principles of natural
justice and the same has not been denied by presumptive provisions, such as
Section 50C of the Act and several other provisions in the scheme of the
Act.
18. In the present facts noted above, we are of the opinion that
CIT (A), where, for the first time, the Report of DVO came up, could either
deal with the objections of Assessee himself or remit the matter back to the
Assessing Authority for dealing with the said objections in an appropriate
and detailed manner. But, such an exercise does not seem to have been
undertaken by him in the present case.
19. Therefore, we are constrained to remit the matter back to
22 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
the Assessing Authority even at this stage, even though belatedly, and allow
the Appeal of the Assessee for the said purpose. We, accordingly, allow
this Appeal and set aside the orders passed by the learned CIT (A) and also
the learned Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Assessing Authority to
decide both the questions about the valuation of the property to be taken
while dealing with the objections of the assessee against the Report of
Departmental Valuation Officer as well as the presumptive value under
Section 50C of the Act and then compute 'Fair Market Value' under Section
48 of the Act and the relief under Section 54F of the Act.
20. In view of the above, the Substantial Questions of Law
framed above are answered in favour of the Assessee and against the
Revenue.
21. Before parting, we may say, that for weighing the evidence
by the Assessing Authority, the Assessing Authority has the powers of a
Civil Court conferred upon him by virtue of Section 131 of the Act by way
of enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a
banking company or examining him on oath, production of documents,
discovery and inspection, as the case may be. Therefore, while dealing with
23 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
the aforesaid piece of evidence, namely, Departmental Valuation Officer's
Report or in allowing the Assessee to controvert the presumptive value
under Section 50C of the Act, the Assessing Authority can very well
exercise the said powers conferred upon him.
22. With the above observations and directions, this Tax Case
Appeal is allowed. No costs.
Index : Yes (V.K.,J.) (C.V.K.,J.)
Internet : Yes 15-02-2019
Speaking Order
dixit
To
1.The Income Tax Officer,
International Taxation 2 (2),
Chennai - 34.
2.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai 'A' Bench,
Chennai.
24 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.
and C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
dixit T.C.A.No.142 OF 2019 15-02-2019 25 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in