The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Puducherry-3 v. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Orderdated 10.5.2019 Made In Ita

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYANTAX CASE APPEAL NO.1018 OF 2019 & CMP.NO.26576 OF 2019(heard through video conferencing) The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry-3. ...Appellant Vs Smt.A.Rahamadunnisa ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 10.5.2019 made in ITA.No.191/Chny/2019on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai ‘A’Bench for the assessment year 2010-11 against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Puducherry in ITANo.100/CIT(A)-PDY/2017-18 for the assessment year 2010-11 by anorder dated 06/09/2018 against the order of the Income TaxOfficer, Ward-I, Villupuram PAN/GIR No.AQLPR9817, assessmentyear 2010-11, date of order 29/12/2017 against the order of theIncome Tax Officer, Wards-I, Villupuram PAN No.AQLPR9817MAssessment Year 2010-11, dated of order 20/03/2015. For Respondent : Mr.Ashokpathy JUDGMENTJudgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J We have heard Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned SeniorStanding Counsel appearing for the appellant - Revenue andMr.Ashokpathy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent –assessee. 2. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the orderdated 10.5.2019 made in ITA.No.191/Chny/2019 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai ‘A’ Bench for theassessment year 2010-11. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The appeal has been admitted on 10.12.2019 on thefollowing substantial questions of law : “i. Is not the order of the Appellate Tribunalperverse by relying upon the valuation report dated08.4.2019 of the registered valuer, which is inaccurate,deficient and incomplete without giving any basis for theadoption of higher rate of Rs.290/- per sq.ft., as on01.4.1981 and without reference to any comparable cases ? ii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correctin following that the value of the property at Rs.20/-per sq.ft., as on 01.4.1981, which was adopted by theAssessing Officer based on the Sub-Registrar officereport as per Section 50C of the Income Tax Act ? andiii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified inaccepting the fresh evidence produced by the assesseenamely registered valuer’s report dated 08.4.2019 byignoring Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 andwithout providing a fair opportunity to the AssessingOfficer?” 4. The above questions of law were considered by us inthe case of the assessee’s brother on identical facts inTCA.No.1017 of 2019 and by judgment dated 09.7.2019 [PCIT Vs.S.Sithik Ali], the said appeal filed by the Revenue wasdismissed and the questions of law were answered against theRevenue. 5. Following the judgment dated 09.7.2019 in TCA.No.1017of 2019, the above tax case appeal is dismissed and thequestions of law were answered against the Revenue. No costs.Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed.Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)//True copy//Sub Assistant Registrar RS To 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Villupuram. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-I, Villupuram. PP(CO)GMY(22/10/2020) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TCA.No.1018 of 2019 &&CMP.No.26576 of 2019