G.S.Sathyanarayana Gupta, Bangalore v. Income-tax Officer, Bangalore

ITA 1323/BANG/2016 | 2012-2013
Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 132321114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AHLPS2459R
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 1323/BANG/2016
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant G.S.Sathyanarayana Gupta, Bangalore
Respondent Income-tax Officer, Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 17-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 17-10-2016
Assessment Year 2012-2013
Appeal Filed On 14-07-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI S.K.YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT A NO.1323(BANG) 2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) SHRI G.S.SATHYANARAYANA GUPTA NO.165/166 1 ST CROSS 5 TH MAIN APMC YARD YESHWANTHPUR BANGALORE -560 022 PAN NO.AHLPS2459R APPELLANT VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2) (4) BANGALORE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C. SANDEEP CA REVENUE BY : SHRI AR SREENIVASAN JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 04-08-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: : 17-10-2016 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K.GARODIA AM THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-6 DATED 25-04-2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER ; IT(TP)A NO.1323(B)2016 2 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN SO FAR IS PR EJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE APPELLANT IS BAD AND ERRONEO US IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE APP ELLANT IS RS.2 91 98 930/- INSTEAD OF RS.2 CRORE. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND TRANSFERRED TO THE DEVELOPER SHOU LD NOT BE TAKEN AS CONSIDERATION APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES L AD DOWN IN S.50D OF THE ACT. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONSIDERING THE GUIDANCE VALUE OF THE BUILT UP AREA RECEIVED AS PART OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION EVEN THO UGH IT DOES NOT EXIST ON THE DATE ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N COMPUTING 20% IN EXCESS OF GUIDANCE VALUE OF THE BU ILT UP AREA RECEIVED AS SALE CONSIDERATION ON THE GROUN D THAT IT IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUND IS PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHE R THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE OF THE HONBLE INCOME TA X APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE O ADD DELETE AMEND OR MODIFY OTHERWISE EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HE ARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS SMT SAROJINI M KUSH E IN ITA NO.989/BANG/2014 DATED 27-04-2016 COPY AVAILABLE O N PAGE 1 TO 5 OF IT(TP)A NO.1323(B)2016 3 THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE TRI BUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS SHANKAR VITAL MOTOR CO. LTD IN ITA NO.35/BANG/2015 DATED 18-03-2016 COPY AVAILABLE ON PAGES 6-15 OF THE PAPER BOOK. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE JUDGME NT OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CKIT V S T. K. DAYALU REPORTED IN 60 DTR 403(KAR.) AND COPY AVAILABLE ON PAGES 16-18 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 4. THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN T HE PRESENT CASE THE AO HAS ADOPTED THE GUIDANCE VALUE FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR (TO BE CONSTRUCTED FLATS) OR (TO BE ACQUIRED FLATS) WHICH WERE NOT IN EXISTENCE ON THE DATE OF JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN T (JDA). IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS SMT. SAROJINI M KUSHE (SUPRA) THE TRIBU NAL DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING ANOTHER TRI BUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS SHANKAR VITTAL MOTOR CO. LTD. ( SUPRA) AND OBSERVED THAT IT WAS HELD IN THAT CASE THAT AT THE TIME OF S IGNING THE JDA THE CAPITAL GAIN HAS TO BE COMPUTED ONLY ON THE GUIDANC E VALUE OF THE LAND AND THEREFORE THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ADOPTING THE GUIDANCE VALUE FOR THE BUILT UP AREA TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PROPER AND THIS CANNOT BE APPROVED. HOWEVER SINCE THE GUIDANCE VALUE OF T HE LAND BEING TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF SIGNING OF THE JDA IS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FEEL IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE IT(TP)A NO.1323(B)2016 4 OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION THAT THE AO SHOULD RE-CO MPUTE THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN BY ADOPTING THE GUIDANCE VALUE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION AT THE TIME OF SIGNING OF THE JDA AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: BANGALORE: D A T E D : 17.10.2016 AM* COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR ITAT BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER AR ITAT BANGALORE IT(TP)A NO.1323(B)2016 5 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICT ATING MEMBER .. 3. !' # . $ %# / $ %# # & DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE PS/SR .PS. 4. ''() & * + DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTAT ING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. * . %# / # . . %# # + DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO THE PS/SR.PS .. 6 * !' + DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. ! !' ' - ) IF NOT UPLOADED FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO . 8. .% / 0 + DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. * 1'2 / 34 & 5 + DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX &ENDORSEMENT 10. 0 6 / + DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 11. * 7 & 0 8 + THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. !) * 9() & 0 9() /#5 . + THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DESPATCH SECTION FOR DESPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER 13. * 9() + DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER .