Ito Chennai v. A Jagannathan Coimbatore

In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal C Bench Chennai Before Shri N R S Ganesan Judicial Member And Shri Sanjay Arora Accountant Member Ita No 345 Mds 2017 C O No 42 Mds 2017 In I T A No 345 Mds 2017 Assessment Year 2009 10 The Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Ward 2 5 63 A Race Course Road Coimbatore V Shri A Jagannathan 50 A Palanisamy Street No 2 Sai Baba Colony K K Pudur Coimbatore 641 038 Pan Adapj 9812 G Appellant Respondent Cross Objector Appellant By Shri N Madhavan Addl Cit 0 Respondent By Shri V Deepan Raj Krishna Adv Ocate 1 2 Date Of Hearing 04 12 2017 3 2 Date Of Pronouncement 07 12 2017 O R D E R Per N R S Ganesan Judicial Member This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Directed Against T He Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals 2 Coimba Tore Dated 31 10 2016 For The Assessment Year 2009 10 Deleti Ng The Penalty Levied Under Section 271 1 C Of The Income Tax Ac T 1961 In Short The Act The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Obje Ction In Respect Of 2 I T A No 345 Mds 17 C O No 42 Mds 17 The Same Order Of The Cit Appeals Therefore We Heard Both The Appeal And The Cross Objection Together And Disposi Ng Of The Same By This Common Order 2 There Was A Delay Of 7 Days In Filing This Appea L By The Revenue The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Cond Onation Of Delay We Have Heard The Ld D R And The Ld Couns El For The Assessee We Find That There Was Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Before The Stipulated Time Therefore We C Ondone The Delay And Admit The Appeal 3 Shri N Madhavan The Ld Departmental Represent Ative Submitted That The Assessing Officer Determined The Taxable Income At 53 61 894 After Adding The Capital Gains To The E Xtent Of 51 35 203 The Assessing Officer Levied Penalty Under Section 271 1 C Of The Act On The Ground That The Fair Ma Rket Value As On 01 04 1981 Was Claimed Without Any Supporting Evide Nce According To The Ld D R The Fair Market Value Of The Property As On 01 04 1981 Has To Be Estimated For The Purpose O F Determining The Cost Of The Asset Since The Assessee Has Take N The Fair Market Value As On 01 04 1981 Without Any Material On Reco Rd According To The Ld D R The Assessing Officer Found That The Assessee Has 3 I T A No 345 Mds 17 C O No 42 Mds 17 Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of His Income The Refore The Cit Appeals Is Not Justified In Deleting The Penal Ty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271 1 C Of The Ac T 4 On The Contrary Shri V Deepan Raj Krishna The Ld Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Estimation Of Fair Market Value May Differ From Person To Person Therefore It May Not Be The Same There Was Some Difference In The Estimation Made By The Assessee And That Of The Assessing Officer Therefore Accor Ding To The Ld Counsel That May Not Be Construed That The Assesse E Has Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of His Income According To The Ld Counsel The Value As On 01 04 1981 Has To Be Estimated On T He Basis Of Material Available On Record Hence It Cannot Be Said That The Assessee Has Concealed Any Particulars Of Income Or Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Therefore Accor Ding To The Ld Counsel The Cit Appeals Has Rightly Deleted The P Enalty By Placing Reliance On The Decision Of This Bench Of The Tribu Nal In Acit V N Meenakshi 2009 125 Ttj 0856 And The Judgment Of B Ombay High Court In Cit V Fortune Hotels And Estates P Ltd 2014 52 Taxmann Com 330 4 I T A No 345 Mds 17 C O No 42 Mds 17 5 We Have Considered The Rival Submissions On Eith Er Side And Perused The Relevant Material Available On Record It Is Not In Dispute That The Issue Arises For Consideration Is Estimation Of Fair Market Value As On 01 04 1981 The Assessee Appear S To Have Failed To Produce Evidences For Adoption Of Fair Ma Rket Value Claimed By Him For The Purpose Of Determining The F Air Market Value As On 01 04 1981 It Is A Well Settled Principles Of Law That Fair Market Value Is Nothing But A Price That Would Be A Greed Between The Willing Purchaser And Willing Seller Therefor E Fair Market Value Is Not A Constant Figure It May Differ Depending Upon Various Factors Such As Demand In The Market Necessity Of Seller To Sell The Property Location Area In Which The Property Is Situated Infrastructure Facilities Available Around The Loca Tion Access To The Infrastructure Facilities Etc Therefore As Righ Tly Submitted By The Ld Counsel For The Assessee Estimation Has To Be M Ade As On 01 04 1981 On The Basis Of Material Available On Re Cord Estimation May Differ From Person To Person Therefore This T Ribunal Is Of The Considered Opinion That Merely Because There Was A Difference Between The Fair Market Value Estimated By The Asse Ssee And That Of The Assessing Officer It Cannot Be Said That Th E Assessee Has Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of His Income Th Is Tribunal Is Of 5 I T A No 345 Mds 17 C O No 42 Mds 17 The Considered Opinion That Estimation Of Fair Mark Et Value As On 01 04 1981 Always Remains To Be Estimation Therefo Re On Such Reasoning It Cannot Be Said That The Assessee Has Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Therefore The C It Appeals Has Rightly Deleted The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271 1 C Of The Act Hence This Tribunal Does Not Find Any Reason To Interfere With The Order Of The Lower Aut Hority And Accordingly The Same Is Confirmed 6 The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection Only To S Upport The Order Of The Cit Appeals Therefore The Cross Ob Jection Becomes Infructuous 7 In The Result Both The Appeal And The Cross Ob Jection Stand Dismissed Order Pronounced On 7 Th December 2017 At Chennai Sd Sd Sanjay Arora N R S Ganesan Accountant Member Judicial Member Chennai 5 Dated The 7 Th December 2017 Kri 6 I T A No 345 Mds 17 C O No 42 Mds 17 267 87 2 Copy To 1 Appellant 2 0 Respondent 3 1 92 Cit A 2 Coimbatore 4 Principal Cit 1 Coimbatore 5 7 2 Dr 6 Gf