Case Law Details
B. Kannabiran Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai)
Tahsildar, being the head of the revenue unit of the Taluk, issued certificate saying that the land in question is beyond 9 KMs radius from Tambaram municipality. This certificate issued by the Tahsildar was rejected by the CIT(Appeals) on the basis of bus route. The details with regard to distance between Tambaram to Vengaivasal Primary Health Centre, said to be obtained from the internet was not put to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee had no occasion to explain the distance between the subject land and Tambaram municipality.
The CIT(Appeals) has also not called for any explanation from the Tahsildar on what basis he issued certificate saying that the distance was beyond 9 KMs radius. If the bus route is within 7 KMs radius, then naturally the certificate issued by the Tahsildar is wrong. Therefore, before rejecting the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, who happen to be the executive magistrate of that area, has to be given opportunity and report shall be called for after intimating the bus route distance. Moreover, if necessary, the Assessing Officer has to examine the Tahsildar in person after issuing summon under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) in order to bring on record the real distance between the subject land and Tambaram municipality.
In view of the above facts, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, both the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the entire issue, including the reinvestment of sale proceeds, is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
