9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 195. Deduction of tax while remitting lies with the payee. By considering the above situation, ld. CIT(A) has deleted interest charged u/s 234B and retained interest charged u/s 234A & 234C as they are statutory provisions. When an income is chargeable to tax in India, irrespective of the residential status, assessee is bound to follow advance tax provisions as laid down u/s 234A and 234C. Therefore, these provisions are consequential in nature. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. - ITA Nos. 984 And 1249/Hyd/2016 - - - Dated:- 11-5-2018 - SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri S. Rama Rao For The Revenue : Smt. Suman Malik ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: Both these appeals of the assessee are directed against the order dated 23/03/2016 of ld. CIT(A) 1, Hyderabad relating to AY 2007-08 . ITA No. 984/Hyd/2016 2. Briefly the facts of the case are, the AO observed that assessee sold a house property admeasuring 629 sq.yards plot bearing No. 530-A, situated at Hakimpet Village, Huda at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad vide registered sale deed No. 4627 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,00,71,555/- Less Deduction u/s 54F 50,92,375/- Long term capital gains taxable ₹ 49,79,180/- Income from other sources (SB A/c int.) 35,952/- Total assessed income 50,15,132/- 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the order of AO on adoption of section 50C and exemption u/s 54F, at the same time gave relief by deleting the interest u/s 234B. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the appellant. 2. The Assessing Officer erred in initiating action u/s 147 of the I.T. Act. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the sale consideration of the property at ₹ 1,14,48,000/- as against the sale price of ₹ 75 lakhs. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months the value of stamp duty has increased substantially and the State Govt. has increased the value of property abnormally to get the revenue and the value of land cannot be doubled in a span of two months. Based on the assessee s objection, it was referred to DVO u/s 50C. Before the DVO, assessee has submitted various issues with regard to land. After considering the issues submitted by the assessee, the DVO has determined the value of the property at ₹ 1,14,48,000/-. He, therefore, submitted that the value fixed by the stamp value authority on the date of sale, does not represent actual market value. He further submitted that even the value fixed by the valuation cell, the value will not increase to such an extent. Therefore, he submitted that the actual sale value should be determined as sale consideration. By submitting that assessee is an NRI and she was not in a position to negotiate for a better price and the document registered in April 06 and the market value determined by the Sub-registrar on the date of registration was only ₹ 75 lakhs, she has no reason to believe that market value of the property will change within a period of 4 months. 7. On the oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 (Mum. Trib). In case, the above decision is considered, the assessee should get 54F deduction at ₹ 83,80,539/-. He, therefore, submitted that the exemption u/s 54F should be enhanced to the above extent. 10. Ld. DR objected to the above submissions and relied on the decision in the case of Shri Gouli Mahadevappa Vs. ITO, 9 ITR(T) 129 (Bang.) (2011). He submitted that section 54 is an exemption provision and it should be independently applied and deeming provision cannot be brought into claiming higher deduction u/s 54F. He supported the findings of ld. CIT(A). 11. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that ld. AR argued before us that section 54F exemption should be enhanced when deeming provision of section 50C is applied and accordingly, capital gain is increased in such application of section 50C. He argued that exemption should be increased in proportion to increase in capital gain by applying the provisions of section 50C. He relied on the decision in the case of Raj Babbar (supra). On careful reading of the above decision of the ITAT, Mumbai, we find that in that case assessee sold a property for sale consideration of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 48 and not worked out as mentioned in s. 45(1) r/w ss. 48 and 50C of the Act. When this interpretation is adopted, every provision of the chapter will fall in line without producing any absurd result and thereby giving a fruitful purpose for the enactments. Alternatively, as canvassed by the learned Authorised Representative, if the term capital gain in s. 54F is arrived at by imposing s. 50C of the Act, then the intention for introducing s. 50C of the Act would be defeated, because whatever may be the capital gain arrived at by imposing s. 50C of the Act would be exempt, if the net consideration, however meagre it may be, is invested in the new asset. Considering the above observations of the coordinate bench of ITAT, Bangalore, assessee cannot claim deduction u/s 54F in proportion to increase in capital gains after attracting the provisions of section 50C. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee are dismissed. 12. With regard to ground No. 8, ld. AR submitted that ld. CIT(A) has passed the corrigendum order without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assesse, as ld. CIT(A) cannot pass corrigendum order once grounds of appeal have already decided. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hargeable to tax in India, irrespective of the residential status, assessee is bound to follow advance tax provisions as laid down u/s 234A and 234C. Therefore, these provisions are consequential in nature. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 1249/Hyd/2016 18. On perusal of record, we find that this appeal was filed before the ITAT with a delay of 34 days. To this effect, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of the said delay. After going through the petition, we accept the submissions of the assessee in the petition and admit the appeal for hearing and adjudication. 19. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Corrigendum issued by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the ground once decided in the appellate order cannot be modified by passing a Corrigendum without providing proper opportunity to the appellant. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought not to have altered the order accepting the stand taken by the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
