9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I High Court), and therefore, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the present issues in dispute are required thorough examination at the level of the Assessing Officer, hence, we quash the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit back the issues in dispute, to the file of the Assessing Officer, with the direction to decide the present issues in dispute, in accordance with the aforesaid directions of CIT vs. New India Construction Co. after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assesse for statistical purposes. - I.T.A.No. 203/DEL/2012 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2015 - Shri N.K. Saini And Shri H.S. Sidhu JJ. For the Appellant : Sh. Satyam Sethi Sh.A.T. Panda, Advocates For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not considering the submissions in proper perspective. That the Assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the ground either at or before the hearing of the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 27.09.2008/ declaring a total income of ₹ 4,71,150/-. The case was processed u/s 143(1) and subsequently was selected for scrutiny on the basis of the receipt of AIR information. Thereafter notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 13.08.2009 through speed post. In response to the same the AR of the assessee attended the proceedings and filed the details. According to the AIR information/ the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty was sold in distress. These objections were reproduced by the A.O. in the assessment order dated 28.12.2010. The objections raised by the assessee were considered and vide letter dated 20.12.2010 the Assessing Officer rejected the same. In the same letter, the A.O. show caused the assessee as to why the proposed valuation of ₹ 28,24,100/- should not be taken as sale consideration for calculating the capital gains. Through the assessee appeared on 22.12.2010, no reply to the said shown cause was forwarded to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, as the issue is within the ambit of section 50C and on request of the assessee u/s. 50C(2), the Assessing Officer referred the property to the AVO and adopted the value reported by the AVO for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first floor. After the sale, the transferee obtained vacant possession for tenant by paying certain amount to each of the tenant and also got the user of property converted from residential to commercial. Based upon the report of Valuation Officer, who on the basis of land and building method determined the fair market value at ₹ 11,41,900/-, acquisition proceeding under section 269C were initiated. On appeal, the Tribunal quashed the acquisition observing that a building with vacant possession and a building with tenants were two different things altogether. Upholding the order of the Tribunal, the Hon ble Court has observed that :- The fair market value of the property on the basis of cost of land and building method would have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale deed furnished by the AR during the course of the assessment proceedings/ it was observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee sold the property at ₹ 10,25,000/- whereas according to the Govt. circle the value of rate the property was ₹ 38,56,000/-. After taking into consideration the sale value at ₹ 10,25,000/-the assessee in his computation calculated a capital loss at ₹ 25,683/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer considered the sale value at ₹ 38,56,000/- in concurrence to the provisions laid in section 50C of the IT Act/ 1961. In compliance to the request made by the A.O. vide letter dated 02.08.2010 the Assessing Officer referred the property to the AVO, Meerut vide letter dated 09.08.2010/ u/s 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng in an addition of ₹ 17,73,417/- (AVO'S Valuation of property at ₹ 28,24,100/- minus Index cost of acquisition as given by the assessee) as against ₹ 4,71,150/. Thereafter, on appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his order 18.10.2011 has confirmed the order of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. During the hearing before us, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Paper Bok containing the various decision of the Hon ble High Courts, especially the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. New India Construction Co. (1980) 123 ITR 68 (Del.) and stated that the present case may be decided in accordance with the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. New India Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
