9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no any reason to deviate from the accepted working of the capital gain as per Rule of consistency. The ld AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jaswant Raj Vs CIT (1977 (2) TMI 22 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court) wherein held that if during the same assessment year the same quantity of wealth in possession of one co-sharer is subjected to a lower rate of taxation, it would be highly improper to burden a similarly situated co-sharer with a higher rate of tax. If such an action on the part of the assessing authorities is sanctioned, it would militate against the principles of equality of law enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution. The assessee, who is also a co-owner of the property, is entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e shops sold at ₹ 36,25,000/-. The assessee had not disclosed the long term capital gain on sale of the shops in his return of income. Proceedings U/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) was initiated as income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The assessee had filed revised return on 13/8/2013. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the basis for making the fair market value (FMV) of the land at ₹ 5,00,000/- as on 01/4/1981 with supporting evidences, for which the assessee submitted that the land in question is situated in the heart of the town having good market value, therefore he had estimated the market value of commercial land as on 01/4/1981 @ 200/- per s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the stamp duty purposes was taken by the registrar at ₹ 3,62,500/- per shop. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee while working out the capital gains had taken the FMV of the land at ₹ 5,00,000/- as on 01.09.1981 the basis, as per assessee being the prevailing market value in the area and same was taken at ₹ 200/- sq. feet, when confronted by the ADIT(lnvestigation), Udaipur. The assessee had been specifically asked to furnish evidence regarding the FMV and the assessee had stated that the value is the estimated market value. However, this value is not supported by any document or any evidence by the assessee. The assessee had submitted a copy of the letter of the Sub- Registrar Sangwara, dated 07.02.1984 in wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 200/- sq. feet and the Assessing Officer has arbitrarily taken the rate as per the rate chart of Tehsildar. The assessee has adopted the FMV at ₹ 200/- sq. feet and even before ADIT (Investigation) had agreed that the same was merely on estimation and no basis of such estimation was provided. Similarly before the Assessing Officer also no supporting documents for the value taken were filed. The Assessing Officer has based his assessment on the chart for the rates available in 1984 of the Tehsildar dated 07.02.1984. Since, no comparative sale instances or rates were available for 01.04.1981, the Assessing Officer applied the reverse method and arrived at the value. In the absence of any basis forwarded by the assessee as we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and record). This fact is duly mentioned in the body of the assessment order which had never been questioned by the department at any stage. In the circumstances, the observations of the Id. CIT (A) that no instance of FMV as on 1.4.1981 was available is factually incorrect and deserves to be quashed summarily. ( ii) Once the Department had accepted the FMV in respect of the same asset in the cases of the brothers of the appellant, then there is no reason for the Authorities Below to deviate from the accepted working of the capital gain as per Rule of 'Consistency'. Thus, the Authorities Below were not within their jurisdiction to deviate from the accepted facts of the case. In support of such contentions, the copies of compu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rer is subjected to a lower rate of taxation, it would be highly improper to burden a similarly situated co-sharer with a higher rate of tax. If such an action on the part of the assessing authorities is sanctioned, it would militate against the principles of equality of law enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution. The assessee, who is also a co-owner of the property, is entitled to the benefit enjoyed by the other co-owner, whose valuation of the same property, at the same rate as that of assessee was accepted by the CIT and recorded in the order under appeal by the Tribunal . The facts of the above case have direct bearing on the facts of the present case. In the back-ground of above discussions, the addition made and confirmed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
