The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai Iii v. M/S.sas Engineering Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) No.245 of 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai III.... Appellant Vs M/s.SAS Engineering Pvt. Ltd.No.18, New No.8, Chitharanjan Road,Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. ... Respondent Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax AppellateTribunal Bench 'C' Chennai, dated 14.08.2008, passed inI.T.A.No.61/Mds/2008 for the assessment year 2004-05. And against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-V,Chennai and made in I.T.A.No.547/2006-07 dated 20.09.2007 andagainst the Income Tax Department GIR NO.PAN.S-67/AAECS0015QCircle-VI(C), Chennai, in the Assessment year 2004-05. For Appellant :Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal, by the Revenue filed under Section 260-A of theIncome-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order of theIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'C' Chennai, (for brevity“the Tribunal”) dated 14.08.2008, in I.T.A.No.61/Mds/2008 forthe assessment year 2004-05. 2. The above appeal has been admitted, on 15.04.2009, on thefollowing substantial questions of law:-“(i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunalwas right in law in giving undue weightage to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ registered valuer's valuation report describingthe state of development of the land based onfactors unrelated to the relevant date viz.,1.4.1982? (ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunalwas right in relying on the decision of the MadrasHigh Court in the case of Commissioner of IncomeTax vs. JVK Rao (258 ITR 90) to support itsconclusion without appreciating that the HighCourt in the said decision had quoted withapproval, inter alia, the method of valuationbased on the certificate from the Sub Registrar?” 3. The short question, which falls for consideration, iswhether the valuation of the property, which was sold by theassessee, as adopted by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-V (for brevity “the CIT(A)”) in his order dated20.09.2007, was proper; and whether the Tribunal was right innot interfering with the said valuation and dismissing theappeal filed by the Revenue. 4. We have perused the order passed by the CIT (A), who hastaken note of the prevailing guideline value, which was adoptedas yardstick by the Assessing Officer, took note of thevaluation made by the Registered Valuer, appreciated thelocational advantages of the property in question and aftertaking note of the decisions which laid down principles foradopting comparable sale instances method, fixed the value atRs.89,250/- per ground. 5. The Revenue went on appeal before the Tribunal and theTribunal rejected the case of the Revenue stating that what wasestimated by the Commissioner was reasonable by taking theaverage of two valuations. Therefore, the estimation was foundto be just and proper. The Court can take judicial note of thefact that during the relevant time, that is, during 1980-81, theguideline value fixed by the Sub-Registrar was based upon thelast sale transaction, which took place in the area . Thus, forseveral years, if the sale transactions were done at aparticular limit, then the guideline value remained static. Itis only thereafter, the Government took a decision to revise theguideline value on a yearly basis with effect from 1st April ofevery month. 6. Thus, considering the factual position, we are of theview that no substantial question of law arises forconsideration in the instant case, as it pertains to computationof the value of the property, which was done by the Commissionerin a particular manner, which was considered to be fair and 6. Thus, considering the factual position, we are of theview that no substantial question of law arises forconsideration in the instant case, as it pertains to computationof the value of the property, which was done by the Commissionerin a particular manner, which was considered to be fair and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reasonable. Hence, for the above reasons, we find no ground tointerfere with the order of the Commissioner. 7. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrarabr/tsgTo1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'C' Chennai.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Chennai.3. The Income Tax Department, Company Circle-VI(1), Chennai 34.+1 cc to Mr.T.R.Senthikumar, Advocate Sr.No.79381T.C.(A) No.245 of 2009RR(CO)CSL/26.12.2018