Income Tax, Puducherry-3 v. Shri.mohammed Hanifa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 13.7.2020CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMAND THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYANTAX CASE APPEAL NO.1019 OF 2019 (heard through video conferencing) The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry-3. ...Appellant/Respondent VsShri.Mohammed Hanifa ...Respondent/Appellant APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 10.5.2019 made in ITA.No.190/Chny/2019on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai ‘A’Bench for the assessment year 2010-11 against the Order of theCommissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) Puducherry dated 06/09/2018made in ITA No.105/CIT(A)-PDY/2017-18 and against the order ofthe office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,Puducherrydated09/03/2017madeinC.No.9127A(08)/Pr.CIT/PDV/2016-17 for the Assessment year 2010-11. For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, SSC For Respondent : Mr.Ashokpathy Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J We have heard Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned SeniorStanding Counsel appearing for the appellant - Revenue andMr.Ashokpathy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent –assessee. 2. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the orderdated 10.5.2019 made in ITA.No.190/Chny/2019 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai ‘A’ Bench for theassessment year 2010-11. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The appeal has been admitted on 10.12.2019 on thefollowing substantial questions of law : “i. Is not the order of the AppellateTribunal perverse by relying upon thevaluation report dated 08.4.2019 of theregistered valuer, which is inaccurate,deficient and incomplete without giving anybasis for the adoption of higher rate ofRs.290/- per sq.ft., as on 01.4.1981 andwithout reference to any comparable cases ? ii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal wascorrect in following that the value of theproperty at Rs.20/- per sq.ft., as on01.4.1981, which was adopted by theAssessing Officer based on the Sub-Registraroffice report as per Section 50C of theIncome Tax Act ? And iii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal isjustified in accepting the fresh evidenceproduced by the assessee namely registeredvaluer’s report dated 08.4.2019 by ignoringRule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 andwithout providing a fair opportunity to theAssessing Officer?” 4. The above questions of law were considered by us inthe case of the assessee’s brother on identical facts inTCA.No.1017 of 2019 and by judgment dated 09.7.2019 [PCIT Vs.S.Sithik Ali], the said appeal filed by the Revenue wasdismissed and the questions of law were answered against theRevenue. 5. Following the judgment dated 09.7.2019 in TCA.No.1017of 2019, the above tax case appeal is dismissed and thequestions of law were answered against the Revenue. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar RS To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai ‘A’ Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Puducherry-605003. 3.The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Puducherry. TCA.No.1019 of 2019 VG II(CO)KKV/28/08/2020