9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enhanced the income of the assessee,that he did not consider the claim made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings towards deduction u/s.54 of the Act,that the FAA confirmed the order of the AO and made further additions. We find that the entire plot of land was not handed over by the HUF to the developer,that the FAA had adopted wrong figures in the Tables for enhancing the income of the assessee,that the assessee had objected to the valuation of stamp duty authorities,that the matter was not referred to the DVO,that the assessee had challenged the original order of the AO before the FAA,that the then FAA had decided the issue in favour of the assessee,that during the assessment/appellate proceedings,challenging th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts: 3. As stated earlier,the AO had passed original scrutiny assessment in the month of December, 2010.Subsequently,the CIT-22 Mumbai, on perusal of the record found that said assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.Accordingly,he passed an order u/s. 263 on 23/01/2013 directing the AO to revise the assessment. In his order, the CIT observed that as per the valuation of property and as per the stamp duty valuation the market value of the plot was ₹ 3.55 crores, i.e., the agreement value was shown at ₹ 2.50 crores, that in the return of income the assessee had calculated the capital gain as per the agreement value i.e. at ₹ 2.50 crores, that the AO had accepted the same while c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. In his order, passed u/s. 143 (3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, the AO observed that as per the provisions of section 50 C for transfer of immovable property, the value fixed at ₹ 3.55 crores by the stamp valuation authority,was to be adopted if the value was more than the consideration shown as received, that value of the flat (Rs. 93.78 lakhs) was to be added as forming part of consideration for transfer along with the registration charges (Rs. 3.86 lakhs), that consideration of ₹ 4.52 crores (Rs. 3.55 crores plus ₹ 93.78 lakhs plus ₹ 3.86 lakhs) was to be adopted in place of ₹ 2.50 crores in the original assessment order. He further observed that the assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 54 of the Act wherein only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to why the market value adopted by the state government should not be considered in place of the agreement value considered by the AO. He further asked the assessee as to why the value of the recommendation should not be taxed as forming part of sale consideration.The FAA in a tabular form calculated the consideration. After considering the reply of the assessee dated 13/02/2015,he held that the argument of the assessee that valuation adopted by the State governments had to be reduced further on account of owner held property was not acceptable on facts, that during assessment/appellate proceedings, the assessee had not disclosed the option exercised by him for receipt of consideration in terms of clause 11 of the development agreement, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee u/s.54 of the Act with regard to cost of construction received, that the AO/FAA had not considered the facts with regard to valuation of the property, that the valuation of the property adopted by both the authorities was incorrect, that the valuation should have been done on the area offered for development to the developer, that in the return submission dated 09/12/2011 to the FAA the assessee had shown calculation of long-term capital gain i.e. deduction u/s. 54 of the Act.The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the FAA. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and their perused the material before us. We find that the assessee had sold his inherited property in which she had a 12.5% share is a coparce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
