Y. A. Shivakumar, Bangalore v. DCIT, Bangalore

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE DR. O.K NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER SN I.T.A NO. APPELLANT S/SHRI RESPONDENT 1 1096/BANG/2009 (A.Y 2006-07) Y.G KASHINATH (HUF) SUDHAMA HOUSE CHICKPET BANGALORE-560 053. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-5(1) BLORE 2 1097/BANG/2009 (A.Y 2006-07) Y.A BALACHANDRA SUDHAMA HOUSE CHICKPET BANGALORE-560 053. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-5(1) BLORE. 3 1098/BANG/2009 (A.Y 2006-07) Y.A SUBRAMANYAN (HUF) SUDHAMA HOUSE CHICKPET BANGALORE-560 053 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-5(1) BLORE. 4 1099/BANG/2009 (A.Y 2006-07) GIRIDHAR G YADALAM (HUF) SUDHAMA HOUSE CHICKPET BANGALORE-560 053 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-5(1) BLORE. 5 1100/BANG/2009 (A.Y 2006-07) Y.A SHIVAKUMAR SUDHAMA HOUSE CHICKPET BANGALORE-560 053 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-5(1) BLORE. APPELLANT BY : SHRI C RAMESH CHARTERED ACCOUNTA NT RESPONDENT BY : SMT. V.S SREELEKHA ADDL. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME-T AX O R D E R PER DR. O.K NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS A BUNCH OF FIVE APPEALS ALL RELATING TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE APPEALS ARE FILED BY DIFFERENT A SSESSES BUT THEY ARE ITA NOS.1096 TO 1100/B/09 2 CLOSELY CONNECTED. THE GROUNDS RAISED AND THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THESE APPEALS ARE ALSO JUS T THE SAME. THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT( A)-II AT BANGALORE DATED 15.9.2009 AND ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENTS CO MPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEES AS CO-OWNERS HAD SOLD DIFFERENT PR OPERTIES FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE DISPUTE AROSE IN DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF LAND AS ON 1.4 .81 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIM ED FAIR MARKET VALUE OF 90.25/SFT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE B ASIS OF THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES ADOPTE D THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT RS.25.50/SFT. IN FIRST APPEALS THE CIT(A ) MODIFIED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE TO RS.38/SFT. FURTHER THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.1 76 550/- WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BY THE CIT(A). THE PAYMENT WAS CLAIMED BY WAY OF DEDUCTION AS THE AMOUNT PAID TO M/S PRESTIGE ACROPO LIS APARTMENT ASSOCIATION. THE ASSEASSES ARE AGGRIEVED FOR THE A BOVE REASONS AND THEREFORE THESE SECOND APPEALS BEFORE US. ITA NOS.1096 TO 1100/B/09 3 3. WE HEARD SHRI C RAMESH THE LEARNED CHARTERED AC COUNTANT APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. V.S SREELEKHA THE LEARNED ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPEARING FOR THE REVEN UE 4. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THIS ISSU ES HAVE BEEN SUCCINCTLY DISCUSSED BOTH BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORIT Y AND THE CIT(A) IN THEIR ORDERS RESPECTIVELY. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO REPEAT THOSE DETAILS OF FACTS AGAIN. 5. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE NATURE OF TH E LAND AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TR ANSACTION WE FIND THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE FIXED BY THE CIT(A) AT R S.38/SFT IS LITTLE LESSER. TO BE FAIR AND REASONABLE WE MODIFY THE F AIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 1.4.81 AT RS.50/SFT. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. REGARDING PAYMENT OF RS.1 76 550/- STATED TO BE MADE TO M/S PRESTIGE ACROPOLIS APARTMENT ASSOCIATION THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY MATERIALS TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S BOUND TO MAKE SUCH PAYMENTS TO THE APARTMENT ASSOCIATION WHEN THE SALES WERE MADE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH BINDING EVIDENCES IT IS NOT POSSIBLE ITA NOS.1096 TO 1100/B/09 4 TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 7. IN RESULT THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSES A RE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TUESDAY THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2010 AT BANGALORE. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (DR. O.K NARAYA NAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PR ESIDENT VMS. COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEES 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF 7..GF ITAT NEW DELHI. BY ORD ER ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT BANGALOR E.