ACIT,, CHENNAI v. Smt. Gowri,, CHENNAI

ITA 483/CHNY/2012 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 48321714 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AANPS0684B
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 483/CHNY/2012
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant ACIT,, CHENNAI
Respondent Smt. Gowri,, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-07-2012
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-07-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 17-07-2012
Next Hearing Date 17-07-2012
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 06-03-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O. K. NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NO.483 /MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I(2) CHENNAI. V. SMT. GOWRI L/H TO LATE S. SHANMUGAM 5/15 BLUE BEACH ROAD NEELANGARAI CHENNAI-6-00 041. (PAN : AANPS0684B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.N. BETERI JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 17 .07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.07.2 012 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09-12-2011 PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS)-I CHEN NAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE. THERE WAS A SEARCH ITA NO.483/MDS/2012 2 ACTION CARRIED OUT IN HIS RESIDENCE ON 13-2-2009. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SOME MATERIAL RELATING TO INVESTME NT AND PROPERTIES AT VARIOUS PLACES WERE SEIZED AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AT NIL ANGARAI AND VALASARAVAKKAM AND A COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT ANNA NA GAR CHENNAI. THE VALUATION OF THESE PROPERTIES WAS REF ERRED TO THE DVO U/S. 142A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE DV O ARRIVED AT A DIFFERENCE OF ` 60 50 202/- THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN BELOW : DETAILS OF DISCOUNTED VALUE ASSESSEES DIFFERENCE PROPERTY VALUE OF BUILDING SUIBMISSION 15 14 TH MAIN ROAD 3 12 01 302 3 04 35 182 7 66 120 ANNA NAGAR CHENNAI-40 222 6 TH STREET 53 73 900 32 13 718 21 60 182 JANAKI NAGAR EXTN.. VALASARAVAKKAM CHENNAI-87. 5/15 BLUE BEACH ROAD 1 33 34 400 1 02 10 500 31 23 90 0 NEELANGARAI CHENAI-41. 60 50 202 ___________________________________________________ ________________________ THE AO BY CONSIDERING THE DVOS REPORT HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 60 50 202/-. 3. ON BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.483/MDS/2012 3 HIMSELF HAS SUPERVISED THE CONSTRUCTION AND THEREFO RE 7.5% TOWARDS SELF-SUPERVISION HAS TO BE GIVEN IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DVO ESTIMATED THE DIFFERENCE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CPWD RATES. THEREFO RE AN ADDITIONAL DISCOUNT OF 15% HAS TO BE GIVEN TO THE A SSESSEE. FURTHER HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF G.B. GAUTHAM V. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (199 ITR 530) AND THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF A.ABDUL RAHIM V. ITO (258 I TR 714). THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL AND ALSO THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY HIM HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL DIS COUNT OF 15% TOWARDS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CPWD RATES AND PWD RATES APART FROM 7.5% TOWARDS SELF SUPERVISION IS REASONABLE AN D DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE FIRST PROPERTY VIZ. AT ANNA NA GAR 15% IN ADDITION TO 7.5% ALREADY GIVEN. FOR THE OTHER TWO PROPERTIES SINCE ALREADY 10% HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO A FURTHE R 12.5% IS TO BE ALLOWED. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE HAS CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED COUNSEL RE-ITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS WHICH HE HAD MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T(A). ITA NO.483/MDS/2012 4 ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE AO. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE BOTH THE SIDES PERUSED T HE RECORDS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE US IS WITH REGA RD TO THE ADDITIONAL DISCOUNT OF 15% AND 12% GIVEN TO THE ASS ESSEE TOWARDS THE DIFFERENCE IN CPWD RATES AND PWD RATES BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF G.B. GAUTHAM V. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (SUP RA) AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF A. ABDUL RAHIM V. ITO (SUPRA). WE FIND NO INFIR MITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE THEREFORE C ONFIRM HIS ORDER AND DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY THE 30 TH OF JULY 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O. K. NARAYANAN) ( V.DURGA RAO ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 30 TH JULY 2012. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE