9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, there is no justification of challenging the 148 proceeding by the assessee. - Decided against assessee. Long term capital gain u/s. 50C - A.O. made addition on the basis of valuation of stamp authority for stamp purposes u/s. 50C - CIT(A) confirmed the addition by observing that the appellant had failed to furnish the report of Government Approved Valuer before the A.O. to support the claim of index cost acquisition - Held that:- The assessee claimed that he had valued the property for cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 from Government Approved Valuer, submitted before the A.O. by letter dated 16.02.2011. It does not indicate that assessee had filed this report before the A.O. but value was stated at ₹ 20,80,000/- as on 01.04.1981 which prima facie indicates that assessee had obtained the Valuation Report and claimed cost of acquisition at ₹ 20,80,000/- as on 01.04.1981. For computation of capital gain cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 is required in case of property held before 01.04.1981. The copy of report was filed before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct to A.O. to consider the Valuation Report as on 01.04.1981 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 2. The facts of the case are that assessee had not disclosed the long term capital gain earned by him on sale of assets as provided u/s. 50C of the IT Act. The A.O. recorded the reasons u/s. 147 of the IT Act and issued notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act. The assessee sold the plots of land of ₹ 65 lacs, Survey no. R.S.No. 78/1, Block No. 130 paiki, Jahangirpura, Surat as per sale deed dated 10.08.2005. The assessee had received sale consideration of ₹ 16,25,000/- as 25% on the total sale consideration. However, the assessee had not disclosed this capital gain in the return filed by the assessee. The Sub-Registrar vide letter dated 01.02.2011 had valued the said property at ₹ 6,12,10,000/- for stamp duty. However, assessee stated that the value of the stamp duty purpose was determined at ₹ 97,93,600/- by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation. Later on, it has been confirmed by the Collector of stamp duty. Therefore, the valuation adopted by the stamp duty authorities in respect of the land sold by the assessee was much higher than reflected in the sale deed. There was long term capital gain of ₹ 24,48,400/- on sale of this plot of land as bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Before him, he also challenged the reopening made by the A.O. u/s. 148, which was dismissed by him by giving detailed reasoning on page nos. 3 to 13 by analyzing the change made after 01.04.1989 in Section 47 and it was observed that after 01.04.1989 the powers of reopening had widened within a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The requirement and income chargeable tax has escaped assessment due to the valuation on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts was not longer relevant in case of the reopening of an assessment within a period of 4 years. He further analyzed the reason to believe and A.O. had to record the reason to believe which does not mean the final outcome of the proceeding comes concealment of income. The assessee never asked to give copy of reasons recorded before the A.O. The assessee co-operated the assessment proceeding. Thus, as per Section 292BB, he has no right to challenge the proceeding before higher form. The ld. CIT(A) also sited various decisions on reopening. 4. Now, the assessee is before us. Ld. A.R. has drawn our attention on page no.1 which is notice issued by the A.O. for reopening comes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. The assessee was having 25% shares in it. The proportionate long term capital gain was worked out by the A.O. at ₹ 24,48,400/-. The assessee also argued before the A.O. that he claimed this property of the HUF but assessee could not substantiate his claim with evidence before the A.O. The assessee claimed that he got valuation as on 01.04.1981 from Government Approved Valuer at ₹ 20,80,000/- and claimed indexation before the A.O. but no evidences were submitted by the assessee before the A.O. Thus, he calculated long term capital gain without applying any indexation on cost as on 01.04.1981 at ₹ 24,48,400/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who had confirmed the addition by observing that the appellant had failed to furnish the report of Government Approved Valuer before the A.O. to support the claim of index cost acquisition, but the assessee filed this report on 05.08.2005 in the office of CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) asked the assessee to prove whether copy of this report was filed in the office of the A.O. or any evidence for claiming this land in the name of HUF. The ld. CIT(A) held that the cop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
