9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. If need be, reference may be made to the DVO to ascertain the fair market value. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 1231/Bang/2015 - - - Dated:- 13-5-2016 - Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Anil Kumar, CA For the Respondent : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR) ORDER Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 27.07.2015 of the CIT(Appeals)-5, Bengaluru inter alia on the following grounds:- 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) so far as is against the appellant is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter allowing exemption u/s. 54EC, estimated the long term capital gain at ₹ 8,63,960. Accordingly addition of ₹ 8,63,960 was made, against which an appeal was filed before the CIT(Appeals). 3. The assessee has filed written submissions before the CIT(Appeals) explaining the receipt of lesser amount. It was also contended that though assessee has raised a dispute with regard to actual sale consideration adopted by the AO, but the AO has not made any reference to DVO to assess the fair market value of the property. Relying upon the assessment order, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition after granting part relief. 4. Now the assessee is before us with the submission that once the assessee has raised an objection to the valuation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in Nabard Bonds and claimed exemption u/s 54EC. (b) The immovable property sold was under litigation. The property was agreed to be sold to one Sri L Mallikarjun (hereinafter referred as agreement holder) and the agreement holder had filed two suits under specific performance clause. The suites were numbered as O.S. No.540911994 and O.S. No.51711996 and cases were being dragged on past many years. The agreement holder had no funds to make payment in terms of the agreement When new buyers showed interest to purchase the property it was inter-alia agreed amongst the owners and agreement holder, that property was to be sold for ₹ 45 lakhs and sale proceeds be dividend in particular ratio. The suit was compromised and dismissed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of sale price. The property was agreed to be sold to the present buyers when the dispute between the owners and agreement holder existed i.e O. S. No 5409/1994 and O. S No. 517/1996, the agreement holder got ₹ 20 lacs whereas the owners including appellant got only ₹ 25 lacs. (e) The AO has determined the sale proceeds u/s 50C at ₹ 81,13,000 and has computed the capital Gain without referring the issue of valuation to Valuation Officer as required under section 50C (2). In view of the same the order now passed is an invalid order and hence to be cancelled. 2. The A.O has held in the order the agreement holder Sri L Mallikarjun has got 1/5th right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come tax on LTCG @ 20% ₹ 26040 before SC EC. 7. Having carefully examined the order of lower authorities, we find that the contentions of the assessee with regard to lesser receipt of sale consideration were not examined by the revenue authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to readjudicate the issue afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. If need be, reference may be made to the DVO to ascertain the fair market value. 8. In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 13th day of May, 2016. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
