Rajini Venugopal vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Kumudini Venugopal Vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.—The assessees filed the above writ petitions seeking for the relief of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the

first respondent in his file ABAPV2377G/R.II/2007-2008 and ABEPV8712D/R.II/2007-2008 respectively and quash the impugned order dt.

17th Dec, 2007.

The above relief has been sought for on the following facts: When the assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 2005-2006 are pending before

the ITO for completion, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment by computing the capital gains arising on transfer of a land invoking the

provisions of Section 50C. Objecting to the proposal, the assessees preferred applications u/s 144A seeking intervention of the Addl. CIT in

clarifying the interpretation of provision of Section 50C to the effect that only the actual sale proceeds received on transfer in the two instances of

sale, the long-term capital gains as stated in the return of income has to be admitted. According to the assessees, the actual consideration received

was Rs. 47 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs, respectively. But, the assessment was sought to be finalised on the basis of the value determined by the stamp

valuation authorityi.

While so, the AO referred the issue to the Valuation Officer. Aggrieved by the action of the AO referring the matter to the Valuation Officer u/s

50(2)(b), the assessees approached the Addl. CIT u/s 144A. The Addl. CIT by the impugned orders, directed the AO to ignore the valuation

report arrived at by the Valuation Officer and proceed to finalise the assessment by adopting the value assessed or adopted by the stamp valuation

authority as the full value of the consideration for sale. The correctness of the same is now canvassed before this Court in these writ petitions.

Mr. J. Balachander, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the purchasers aggrieved by the orders passed by the stamp

valuation authority, has taken the matter by way of writ petitions before this Court and until final orders are passed in the writ petitions; the

assessment should not be finalised by taking the full value of the consideration as determined by the lower authorities under the Stamp Act.

We are not able to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. If ultimately the writ Court grants any relief in favour of the

transferee of the property, that will automatically apply to the assessees also, and the capital gains tax could be adjusted as per the outcome of the

writ petition and for that purpose the assessment cannot be kept pending.

With the above observations, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. The assessees are permitted to implead themselves in the writ petitions

filed by the purchasers pending before this Court.