Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Legal Heir Of Dr.b.sivanthi Adityan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.9.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY TAX CASE (APPEAL) NO.873 OF 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, No.121, Nungambakkam High RoadChennai 600 034... Appellant/Respondent Vs. Legal Heir of Dr.B.Sivanthi Adityan, 6, E.V.K.Sampath Road,Vepery, Chennai 600 007... Respondent/Appellant Prayer:- Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 19.4.2017 made in ITANo.2545/Mds/2016 Assessment year 2007-2008 and Against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-15,Chennai-34,dated27.06.2016madeinI.T.A.No.161/CIT(A)-15/15-16 Assessment Year 2007-08 and againstthe order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CorporateCircle 6(2), Chennai-34, order dated 30.03.2015 made inPAN.AAMPA7576R Assessment Year 2007-2008. Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) The Revenue has filed this Tax Case under Section 260-A ofthe Income Tax Act by raising the following purportedsubstantial questions of law arising from the order passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 19.4.2017, for theAssessment Year 2007-2008:- "(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified indirecting the Assessing Officer to follow theprovisions contained in section 50C(2) of theIncome Tax Act when provisions of section 50C are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not applicable for the Asst. Year 2007-08 sincethe Joint Development Agreement as well as Powerof Attorney were not registered and the word“assessable” was inserted in section 50C onlyw.e.f. 01.10.2009? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law, ITAT was justified indirecting the AO to apply provisions of sec.50C(2) when that provisions is applicable, where theassessee objects to the adoption of guidelinevalue as per sec.50C(1), whereas in the casepresent case the assessee wants adoption ofguideline value by applying sec.50C(1) and thusthe decision of ITAT is contrary to theprovisions of IT Act? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law, ITAT was justified in notfollowing the binding decision of JurisdictionalHC in CIT Vs R.Sugantha Ravindran (352 ITR 488)wherein it was held that provisions of section50C are not applicable prior to 01.10.2009 undersimilar situation? (iv) On the similar set facts of the case and inlaw, ITAT ought to have directed AO to adopt thecost of construction incurred by the BuilderM/s.RMZ Infotech Pvt Ltd as full value ofconsideration by following the ratio laid down inCIT Vs National Cooperative Federation of IndiaLtd (Del) 221 Taxman (Mag) 157?" 2. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for theAppellant/Revenue Mr.J.Narayanasamy fairly submits that inpursuance of the remand order passed by the learned Tribunal on19.4.2017 for the Assessment Year 2007-2008, vide para 8.1 ofthe impugned order, the present Appeal has been filed by theRevenue, the Assessing Authority has passed fresh orders on17.10.2017 for the Assessment Year 2007-2008 and therefore, thepresent Appeal has become infructuous. 3. None has appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Assessee. 4. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learnedSenior Standing Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Revenue, wedispose of the Appeal having been rendered infructuous, leavingthe questions of law open and leaving it open to the Assessee totake his recourse against the order dated 17.10.2017 aspermitted in law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. None has appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Assessee. 4. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learnedSenior Standing Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Revenue, wedispose of the Appeal having been rendered infructuous, leavingthe questions of law open and leaving it open to the Assessee totake his recourse against the order dated 17.10.2017 aspermitted in law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ With this observation, the Appeal is disposed of. Nocosts. Sd/- Assistant Registrar//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrarssk.To1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, No.121, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 600 034.3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle, Chennai 600 034. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai-34.T.C.(A)No.873 of 2017NR(CO)CS/10/11/2020