The Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) Chennai Appellant v. Smt Geetha Johnson Respondent

Dated : 22.12.2009 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Tax Case (Appeal)No.1407 of 2009 The Director of Income Tax(Exemption) Chennai Appellantv. Smt Geetha Johnson Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 09.07.2009 passed in ITANo.75/Mds/2009. For appellant : Mr.Patty B.Jeganathan JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered byK.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.) The revenue on appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ''A' Bench,Chennai, dated 09.07.2009 passed in ITA No.75/Mds/2009, relating to the assessment year 2002-03by formulating the following question of law:- " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in fixing differentmarket value for the same property among the co-owners for the purpose of computation of capitalgain?". 2. The facts:- (i) The assessee owned property in No.82, 96, 90 P.H. Road along with her brothersand mother. Out of the total extent of 28106 sq.ft. 14053 sq.ft. was sold, in which the assessee'sundivided share is 7991.6 sq.ft. In the case of the mother of the assessee, in respect of the very sametransaction, the matter went upto the Tribunal level and the Tribunal in its order dated 14.03.2008in I.T.A.No.1856/Mds/2007 upheld the fair market value fixed by the Commissioner of Income Tax atRs.225/- per sq.ft. In the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer fixed the value at Rs.83.33 persq.ft. based on the details obtained from the Sub-Registrar. The guideline value obtained from theSub-Registrar has been adopted for arriving at the fair market value as against the assessee'svaluation of Rs.412 per sq.ft. (ii) On appeal, at the instance of the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relying on the assessee's mother's case in I.T.A.No.1856/Mds/2007 dated 14.03.2008 fixed the value at Rs.225/-per sq.ft. (iii) Aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the revenue carriedthe matter on appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by relying on the same order dated 14.03.2008made in in I.T.A.No.1856/Mds/2007, upheld the fair market value fixed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeal). (iv) In those factual circumstances, the revenue on appeal before this Court by formulating thequestion of law referred to above. 3. We have heard the argument of Mr.Patty B.Jeganathan, learned counsel for the appellant andperused the materials available on record. 4. on a perusal, it is clear that in respect of the other co-sharer in I.T.A.No.1856/Mds/2007 dated14.03.2008, the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),wherein fair market value has been adopted at Rs.225/- per sq.ft. The same amount has beenadopted in the case of assessee also. In the absence of any other distinguishing factor or any otheradditional factor placed before us or argued before us to take a different view, we are not able to seeany question of law, much less substantial question of law in this case for determination. Hence, thisappeal is dismissed. No costs. (K.R.P.,J.) (M.M.S.,J.)22.12.2009Index : Yes/Internet : Yes/rg K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. And M.M.SUNDRESH, J. rgTo 1. The Commissioner of Income TaxChennai 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chennai 'A' Bench, Chennai. 22.12.2009