Sale consideration received for transfer of property is less than the value determined for payment of stamp duty

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI 

BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT
AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 

I.T.A.No.2072/Chny/2018
Assessment Year: 2012-13)

The Income Tax Officer,
Non-Corporate Ward-19(3)
Chennai.
Appellant

Vs 

Mr. G.Sampath,
Old No.14 New No.1,
Velachery Road, Alandur,
Chennai-600 016.
PAN: DBGPS 0299F
Respondent)

Appellant by : Mr. Suresh Periasamy, JCIT
Respondent by : None

Date of hearing : 10.03.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2021 

 O R D E R

PER G.MANJUNATHA, AM:

 This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against order of the learned CIT(A)-14, Chennai dated 26.03.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2012-13.

2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The learned CIT(A) has erred In condoning the delay in filing appeal by the assessee of 134 days without passing a speaking order. 

3. The learned CIT(A) has erred to consider the fact that assessee himself had pleaded before the CIT(A) that the sale consideration of the impugned property as adopted by the DVO viz. `48.91 crores may be considered instead of value as per sec. 50C of the Act, as adopted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order i.e. Rs.100.04 crores.

4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in adopting the Sale consideration of the property as ` 52.66 crores instead of ` 32 crores as mentioned n the sale deed dt. 7/10/2011 because of which he wrongly concluded that the valuation adopted by the DVO of ` 48.91 crores is less than the sale consideration and accordingly, directed to accept the returned income, whereas the DVO value of `48.91 crores is more than the sale consideration of ` 32 crores and accordingly should have directed to adopt the DVO value instead of income returned by “assessee”.

5. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that a search operation u/s.132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Mr. N.Palanisamy and his group of companies . During the search proceedings, it was found that M/s. Pee Dee Lands Holdings Pvt.Ltd. has purchased a property at Door No.71, L.B. Road, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai on 07.10.2011 measuring 4 acres and 11 cents from 64 sellers for a sale consideration of `32 cores. However, it was noticed that guideline value as mentioned in the registered sale deed was at `100.04 crores.

To know more in details find the attachment file