Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. Sri Ashven Datla

Telangana HC26 Nov 2012ITTA/111/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's order under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found no perversity in the Tribunal's finding that the fair market value of the gifted property as on 1-4-1981 was Rs. 750 per square yard, rejecting the lower fair value assessed by the Assessing Officer based on Sub-Registrar guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Act is dismissed. The orders of the Tribunal are set aside and the case is remitted to the Assessing Officer for reassessment considering the

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs Sri Ashven Datla — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶3

ITTA No. 111 of 2012

¶4

Dated: 26-11-2012

¶5

Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad And Ashven Datla, Hyderabad

¶6

…Appellant

¶7

…Respondent.

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶9

ITTA No. 111 of 2012

¶10

Judgment (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

¶11

We find no merit in this appeal preferred by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) assailing the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench (for short ‘the Tribunal’) dated 29-10-2010 allowing ITA No. 107/Hyd/2010 preferred by the respondent-assessee.

¶12

The assessee received under a registered gift deed, dated 24-12006 the property admeasuring 8091 Sq. yards at Hydernagar, Kukatpally from his relative one Ramachandra Raju. Ramachandra Raju purchased the property on

¶13

21-3-1978 for a consideration of Rs.220/- per acre. The assessee sold the property on 1-2-2006 for a consideration of Rs.5,58,30,000/-. In the return filed for the year 2006-07 the assessee adopted the fair market value of the property as on

¶14

1-4-1981 at Rs.750/- per Sq. yard, exercising the option under Section 49 of the Act. The indexed cost of the land was worked out to Rs.3,01,59,203/- and after deducting this from total sale consideration, the assessee offered to tax long term capital gains at Rs.2,16,70,797/by claiming an expenditure of Rs.40,00,000/-,

¶15

By the order of Assessment dated 31-12-2008, the Assessing Officer on coming to the conclusion (on the basis of a certificate obtained from the Sub-Registrar that the fair market value of the property in question as on 1-4-1981 was at Rs.8/- per Sq. yard),

¶16

rejected the assessee’s claim as to the fair market value as on 1-4-1981 being Rs.750/- per Sq. yard and determined the capital gain at Rs.5,55,08,302/-. The assessee unsuccessfully preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), by the order dated 30-12-2009. Thereupon the assessee preferred a further appeal to the Tribunal which was allowed, as already stated, by the order impugned herein.

¶17

The Tribunal on the basis of its earlier decision in G.Vijay and others in ITA No. 277/Hyd/2003 dated 29-4-2005, reiterated the principle that the guideline value emanating from the Sub-Registrar’s office cannot be adopted unless it is scientifically arrived at; that the State Government had fixed the guidelines in 1976 which were not revised till 1995; and its guideline value/basic value register was not prepared scientifically. The Tribunal also followed its earlier decision i n ACIT v. Sri Narasing Rao HUF in ITA No. 1240/Hyd/2007 dated 26-9-2008 for concluding that it is prudent on the part of the lower authorities to estimate the fair market value as on 1-4-1981 on the basis of the valuation officer’s report, which was arrived at by the reverse indexation method. Consequently the Tribunal ruled as a question of fact that the property would fetch Rs.750/- per Sq. yard if sold in the open market as on 1-4-1981; that the assessee had reasonably estimated the fair market value as on 1-4-1981 at Rs.750/per Sq. yard; that the Assessing Officer and the CIT were not justified in fixing the fair market value as on 1-4-1981 at Rs.8/- per Sq. yard and consequently orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assessing Authority are set aside and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to reassess the return considering the fair market value as on 1-4-1981 at Rs.750/- per Sq. yard and compute the capital gain accordingly.

¶18

We find no perversity in the reasoning and the conclusion on facts recorded by the Tribunal, warranting interference under Section 260-A of the Act. The appeal is therefore dismissed after hearing the

¶19

learned Standing counsel for the appellant Sri J.V.Prasad and Sri K.Vasanth Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee who has appeared pursuant to the notice on admission issued by this Court on 20-3-2012. No costs.

¶20

_________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶21

26^th November, 2012 _______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J GRR

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. Sri Ashven Datla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. Sri Ashven Datla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M/s. Kwality Bar and Restaurent

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M/s. Hotel Swapna Bar and Restaurent

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M/s. Kwality Bar and Restaurent

Association for the Care of the Aged Trust Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv Vs Moschip Semiconductor Technology Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax -Iv Vs M/s. Lokesh Machines Limited