Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Raghupathy Gowtham , Chennai vs Ito Non Corporate Ward 16(3), Chennai on 13 July, 2018
आयकर अपील य अ
धकरण, 'डी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'D' (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI
ी अ ाहम पी. जॉज , लेखा सद य के सम ।
[BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER]
M.P.No.72/CHNY/2018
(in आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2288/Mds/2017)
& I.T.A. No.2288/Mds/2017
नधा रण वष /Assessment year : 2013-2014.
Raghupathy Gowtham Vs. The Income Tax Officer,
100, KGT Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 16(3)
Blue Dale Apartments, Chennai.
Kattaupakkam, Poonamallee,
Chennai 600 056.
[PAN AOBPG 1999K]
(Petitioner) ("#यथ%/Respondent)
Petitioner by : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, C.A.,
Respondent by : Shri. R.V. Aroon Prasad, IRS, JCIT.
सन
ु वाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 13.07.2018
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 13.07.2018
आदे श / O R D E R
PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
Assessee in this Miscellaneous Petition states that the following grounds raised by it were not disposed of by this Tribunal.
''4, For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the ground raised by the appellant pertaining to recomputation of deduction claimed u/s.54F of the Act on account of change in capital gains or investment made.
:- 2 -: M.P. 72/CHNY/2018 and ITA No.2288/2017
5. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in enhancing the assessment u/s.251(1) by disallowing the investment u/s.54F of the Act of F20,00,000/-''.
2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that against capital gains arising on sale of a land at Soorapattu Village, Tiruvallur Dist, assessee had claimed deduction u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act'') for investment in a construction of new residential property. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the matter regarding valuation of the property which was sold giving rise to the capital gains was one of the issues raised by the assessee in its appeal before the Tribunal. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that there was a reference made to District Valuation Officer u/s.50C of the Act by the ld. Assessing Officer which was denied by the said authority for a reason that objection were filed before first appellate authority (DRO (Stamps)) u/s.47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Duty Act and reference u/s.50C of the Act was not valid. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, assessee before this Tribunal had filed additional evidence which proved that there was no such objection or appeal filed. Taking note of this, the Tribunal had remitted the question regarding valuation of the property which was sold, back to the ld. Assessing Officer, for considering whether a reference could be :- 3 -: M.P. 72/CHNY/2018 and ITA No.2288/2017 made to DVO for ascertaining the correct value of the property which was sold. Further, as per the ld. Authorised Representative, in the computation filed, assessee had claimed deduction u/s.54F of the Act which was wrongly computed by the assessing authority. Submission of the ld. Authorised Representative, was that assessee in its appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had, apart from questioning the denial of reference to DVO under Section 50C of the Act also raised grounds questioning the computation made by the ld. Assessing Officer for the purpose of deduction u/s.54F of the Act. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, assessee could avail deduction to the extent of F1,14,80,252/- whereas the ld. Assessing Officer had restricted the addition to F70,82,060/-. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had further curtailed the deduction allowed to the assessee u/s.54F of the Act, disbelieving the work done by the contractor Shri. T. Armstrong Navin. According to the ld. Authorised Representative, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had directed the ld. Assessing Officer to recalculate the deduction available to the assessee u/s.54F of the Act after reducing F20,00,000/- which was the share of expenses incurred by the assessee for construction of a new residence. This as per the ld. Authorised Representative, resulted in enhancement of the capital gains. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative :- 4 -: M.P. 72/CHNY/2018 and ITA No.2288/2017 was that assessee had specifically raised this issue and argued before this Tribunal. However, as per the ld. Authorised Representative, this Tribunal had not adjudicated such issue.
3. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative fairly agreed that the issue regarding deduction under Section 54F of the Act was not adjudicated by this Tribunal. However, according to him, the question regarding valuation of the property which was sold by the assessee, having being sent back to the ld. Assessing Officer for considering a reference to the DVO as stipulated u/s.50C of the Act, the issue regarding computation of deduction u/s.54F of the Act also could go back to the ld. Assessing Officer.
4. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders. A reading of the order of the Tribunal thus indicate that this Tribunal had dealt only with the issue regarding reference to the DVO for valuing the property sold by the assessee, as stipulated u/s.50C of the Act. Relevant para 3 to 8 of the order dated 22.01.2018 is reproduced hereunder:-
''3. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee's father Shri M. D. Raghupathy and Shri A. Venkatesh jointly purchased a vacant land measuring 1.00 acres comprised in S.No. 112/lA and 112/1B at No. 54, Sooropattu Village, Madhavaram Taluk, Tiruvallur district vide sale deed dated :- 5 -: M.P. 72/CHNY/2018 and ITA No.2288/2017 20.03.1997 for a consideration of ₹2,00,000/-. The assessee inherited 50% share of the property along with Smt. R. Rajeswari and Smt. Mamta Raghupathy on 28.11.2003. The above mentioned property was sold on 10.12.2012 for a total consideration of ₹4,00,00,000/-. The assessee received ₹66,66,666/- on account of his share (1/3rd of 50%) in the property.As per the official website of Tamil Nadu Registration Department, the guide line value of the sold property on the date of sale was ₹6,54,00,000/-.
3.1 The assessee raised objections, for adopting this value as the sale consideration received under the provisions of Section 50C. Case was referred to the District Valuation Authority. Vide letter dated 10.03.2016, the DVO stated that the Stamp Duty Valuation was objected before the first appellate authority (DRO (Stamps)) under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Duty Act and hence the reference of this case under Section 50C seems to be invalid. Under these circumstances, as per the provisions of Section 50C of the Income tax Act, 1961, the guide line value as on the date of sale is being adopted as the sale consideration received, subject to outcome of appeal pending before the first appellate authority under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Duty Act. The ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act on 11.09.2014 by making certain additions, among which an addition of ₹37,56,602/- to the income of assessee under the head "capital gains" by adopting the guideline value of the property u/s.50C of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) was confirmed the action of the ld. Assessing Officer. Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), now the assessee is in appeal before Tribunal.
4. The assessee filed a letter dated 11.10.2017 seeking to admit the additional grounds of appeal before this Tribunal. In that letter, the assessee stated that the failure to raise these grounds before the CIT(A) was due to inadvertence. The assessee further pleaded that this omission is not intentional and craves the leave of the Tribunal to admit these additional grounds.
9. The Learned Assessing Officer erred in relying on the District Valuation Officer's reply that an appeal was filed u/s 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Duty Act and consequently the reference to the DVO is not maintainable, when on fact no such appeal was made by the assessee.
:- 6 -: M.P. 72/CHNY/2018 and ITA No.2288/2017
10. The Learned Assessing Officer, upheld the Guideline Value of ₹6,54,00,000/- without giving reference to the provisions of Section 50C(2).
5. I have gone through the petition seeking admission of additional grounds. In my opinion, the assessee is having good and sufficient reasons not to raise the additional grounds on earlier occasion before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, these two additional grounds are admitted for adjudication.
6. In addition to this, the assessee filed additional evidences under Rule-29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Proceedings) Rules as follows.
"i) A copy of letter dated 13.09.2017 received under the Right to Information Act, from the Public Information Officer, Sub Registrar Office, Ambattur.
ii)Affidavit stating that no appeal was filed u/s.47A(1) of the Indian Stamp duty Act."
Before us, ld.A.R prayed that these evidences are not available on earlier occasion and through RTI Act, this information was got from the Public Information Officer, Sub registrar Office, Ambattur vide letter dated 13.09.2017 and prayed that these evidences are very crucial to decide the issue and to be admitted.
7. I have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. I have gone through the petition seeking to admit additional evidences. In my opinion, these documents are not available at the time of deciding the case by the Ld.CIT(A) and these documents were received through a letter dated 13.09.2017 under the Right to Information Act. Accordingly, these additional evidences are admitted for adjudication.
8. The main plea of the assessee is that the ld. Assessing Officer not referred the matter to DVO on the reason that the payment of stamp duty is subject matter of appeal before the higher forum of the State Stamp Duty Authority. However, through RTI Application, the information from Sub registrar Office, Ambattur was got verified and the stamp duty was assessed by the Joint Sub registrar of SRO, Ambattur. Hence, in my opinion, these facts to be examined by the ld. Assessing Officer that whether the assessee appealed before the Appellate Authorities of Stamp Duty with reference to Stamp duty Fee. Accordingly, I remit the issue in dispute to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh. If require, he :- 7 -: M.P. 72/CHNY/2018 and ITA No.2288/2017 has to refer the matter to DVO to ascertain the correct value of the property, which is the subject matter of the assessment''. Assessee is correct in that the Tribunal had not adjudicated ground 4 & 5 raised by it reproduced at para 1 (supra). Accordingly, I am recalling the order for the limited purpose adjudicating ground 4 & 5 raised by the assessee, which raises the question regarding deduction available to the assessee u/s.54F of the Act. Such deduction which was claimed by the assessee, was further reduced on by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In my opinion this is an aspect which can be looked into by the ld. Assessing Officer, once he considers the issue regarding valuation of the property sold by the assessee, for computing the capital gains that arises to the assessee. This Tribunal having already remitted the issue regarding reference to DVO u/s.50C of the Act back to ld. Assessing Officer, I am of the opinion that the question regarding deduction available to the assessee u/s.54F of the Act can also be considered by him afresh. Especially so, since the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had made an enhancement in computation of capital gains, by disbelieving the evidence filed by the assessee for construction expenses incurred by it through one Shri. T. Armstrong Navin. I therefore allow the Miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee, recall the order of the Tribunal in so far as it relates to non adjudication of ground 4 & 5 and dispose of such grounds with a :- 8 -: M.P. 72/CHNY/2018 and ITA No.2288/2017 direction to the ld. Assessing Officer to consider the claim of the assessee u/s.54F of the Act afresh, in accordance with law after considering the evidence, if any, filed by the assessee in this regard. Ground No.4 and 5 of the assessee which were not earlier disposed off by this Tribunal is allowed for statistical purpose.
5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee is allowed. Appeal in ITA No.2288/Mds/2017 is recalled for limited purpose of adjudicating grounds 4 & 5 raised by the assessee, and the said appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday, the 13th July, 2018 at Chennai.
Sd/-
(अ ाहम पी. जॉज ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे नई/Chennai दनांक/Dated:13th July, 2018.
KV आदे श क " त#ल$प अ%े$षत/Copy to:
1. Petitioner 3. आयकर आयु-त (अपील)/CIT(A) 5. $वभागीय " त न2ध/DR
2. "3यथ5/Respondent 4. आयकर आय-
ु त/CIT 6. गाड फाईल/GF