Itta/367/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-V v. Sri Ravinder Singh Arora (

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANUI.T.T.A.No.367 of 2013 Date: 27-08-2013 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax-VIT Towers, A.C. Guards,Hyderabad. … Appellant And 1.Sri Ravinder Singh Arora, 5-5-105/1,2 & 3, Rani Gunj, Secunderabad. … Respondent HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU I.T.T.A.No.367 of 2013 JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) We have heard Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel forthe appellant, and have gone through the impugned judgment andorder of the learned Tribunal. 2. This appeal is sought to be admitted on the following suggested question of law: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether thelearned Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in upholding thevaluation of land adopted by the learned Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per square yard, when the Assessing Officer adopted the value of theland at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per square yard based onthe letter of Sub-Registrar Office, Marredpally, which isavailable in the file, for the purpose of computation ofcapital gains?” 3. The learned Tribunal in paragraph 28 of the judgment and order has simply recorded as follows: “Coming to the ground raised by the Revenue with regardto value to be adopted by the Assessing Officer atRs.2,000 per sq. yd. which is as per SRO’s record, we donot find any infirmity in the finding of the CIT (A) and thesame is confirmed.” 4. It appears that in the said paragraph, the Tribunal hascommitted apparent mistake while recording wrong figure, as thefigure should be Rs.22,000/- instead of Rs.2,000/-. When thelearned Tribunal referred to the findings of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals), we have examined the findings of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He found, on fact, as follows: “In the assessment order, the AO just adopted the value ofthe land @ Rs.25,000/- per sq. yard but did not base hisvaluation properly. The appellant, during the course ofappellate proceedings, furnished details of sale transactionas obtained by him from the SRO (Sub-Registrar’sOffice). His contention that the value prevailing inJanuary, 2006, should have been adopted is acceptable. In the absence of any sound basis for valuing the land @Rs.25,000/- per sq. yard, I direct the AO to adopt the valueof the land at Rs.22,000/- which is as per the SRO’srecords and re-compute the capital gains accordingly.” 5. Thus it is clear that the Assessing Officer made thevaluation without any foundation, rather he made a guess work. Whereas the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as theTribunal have relied on acceptable materials, namely, the value asrecorded by the local registration office. Therefore, we are of theview that correct approach has been adopted by both theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Hence,there is no element of law involved in this appeal for admission. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There will be noorder as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shallstand closed. _________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ Date: 27-08-2013YCR _________________ K.C. BHANU, J