AO Can’t Reference Only One of Two Available Guideline Values for the Value Property | HC

Case Details: R. Rajasekaran v. ACIT - [2023] 152 taxmann.com 438 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Mrs S. Srimathy, J.
  • Raja Karthikeyan for the Petitioner.
  • N. Dilip Kumar, Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment of the assessee under section 147 on the ground that he had not disclosed the value of the property and passed the assessment order under section 144B(1) in a faceless manner.

Assessee filed writ petition before the Madras High Court contending that the assessment had taken only the guideline of the Gandhi Nagar alone. In contrast, there were two guideline values available to value property. Thus, directions should be issued to AO to redo the assessment.

High Court Held

The Madras High Court held that AO had taken a wrong valuation for the property. In the assessment order, there was no discussion of the two guideline values (one for Canal Street and another for Gandhi Nagar). The assessment has taken only the guideline value of Gandhi Nagar alone. Therefore, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity.

Accordingly, the impugned assessment order was quashed, and the AO was directed to grant the personal hearing. At his liberty, the assessee can produce records, especially the guideline value provided by the concerned authorities. AO was directed to pass the assessment order on merits by taking appropriate facts.