Tca/1456/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Sas Engineering P Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.03.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD TCA.NO.1456 OF 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant M/s. SAS Engineering P.Ltd., No.18, New No.8, Chittaranjan Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. ... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,“D” Bench, Chennai, dated 18.02.2010 in I.TA.No.1807/Mds/2009Assessment Year 2005-2006. As against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals-V) Chennai made in ITA.No.360/07-08 dated 24.09.2009 asagainst the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCompany Range VI(1), Chennai-34 in PAN.No. dated oforder 31.12.2007 for the Assessment Year 2005-2006. For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanasamy Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar For Respondent (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant /Revenue, challenging the order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai, inI.TA.No.1807/Mds/2009, relating to the assessment year 2005-2006. 2. By order dated 22.03.2011, this court admitted theaforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questionof law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in adopting the fair market value / cost ofacquisition of the land at Rs.89,250/- per ground ason 01.04.1981 as against Rs.3,500/- per ground whichwas the guideline value as per the Sub Registrarvaluation?" 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides, whojointly submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this court byjudgment dated 20.11.2018 in T.C.A.No.245 of 2009 in respect ofthe assessee's own case, decided the identical question of lawagainst the Revenue. The relevant passage of the said judgmentcan profitably be extracted below: “3. The short question, which falls forconsideration, is whether the valuation of theproperty, which was sold by the assessee, as adoptedby the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V (forbrevity “the CIT(A)”) in his order dated 20.09.2007,was proper; and whether the Tribunal was right in notinterfering with the said valuation and dismissing theappeal filed by the Revenue. 4. We have perused the order passed by the CIT(A), who has taken note of the prevailing guidelinevalue, which was adopted as yardstick by the AssessingOfficer, took note of the valuation made by theRegistered Valuer, appreciated the locationaladvantages of the property in question and aftertaking note of the decisions which laid downprinciples for adopting comparable sale instancesmethod, fixed the value at Rs.89,250/- per ground. 5. The Revenue went on appeal before theTribunal and the Tribunal rejected the case of theRevenue stating that what was estimated by theCommissioner was reasonable by taking the average oftwo valuations. Therefore, the estimation was found tobe just and proper. The Court can take judicial noteof the fact that during the relevant time, that is,during 1980-81, the guideline value fixed by the Sub-Registrar was based upon the last sale transaction, which took place in the area . Thus, for severalyears, if the sale transactions were done at aparticular limit, then the guideline value remainedstatic. It is only thereafter, the Government took adecision to revise the guideline value on a yearlybasis with effect from 1st April of every month. 5. The Revenue went on appeal before theTribunal and the Tribunal rejected the case of theRevenue stating that what was estimated by theCommissioner was reasonable by taking the average oftwo valuations. Therefore, the estimation was found tobe just and proper. The Court can take judicial noteof the fact that during the relevant time, that is,during 1980-81, the guideline value fixed by the Sub-Registrar was based upon the last sale transaction, which took place in the area . Thus, for severalyears, if the sale transactions were done at aparticular limit, then the guideline value remainedstatic. It is only thereafter, the Government took adecision to revise the guideline value on a yearlybasis with effect from 1st April of every month. 6. Thus, considering the factual position, weare of the view that no substantial question of lawarises for consideration in the instant case, as itpertains to computation of the value of the property,which was done by the Commissioner in a particularmanner, which was considered to be fair andreasonable. Hence, for the above reasons, we find noground to interfere with the order of theCommissioner.7. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Nocosts." 4. Following the above decision, the substantial questionof law is answered in favour of the assessee and against theRevenue. Accordingly, the Tax case Appeal filed by the Revenuestands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar av To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Chennai, 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle VI (1), Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 121, M.G.Road, 7th Floor, Chennai - 600 034. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - V, Chennai.5. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Range VI, Chennai-34. +1cc to Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.18747 TCA.No.1456 of 2010 SPD(CO)PM/05/04/2022