9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh. While doing so, he has to give his opinion as to whether the property is a leasehold property or not and whether long term capital gain is chargeable on the leasehold property or not. Decided in favor of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No.864/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 21-8-2018 - SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri P. S. Kashyap, CA For The Department : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR ORDER PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.12.2017 of CIT(A), Aligarh relating to assessment year 2011-12. 2. Gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ituated at Mahanagar, Lucknow for ₹ 1,08,23,309/-. On being questioned by the Assessing Officer, it was submitted that this property was inherited property from her late mother Smt. Krishna Gupta, who expired on 21.07.2009. As per the Will, after the death of Smt. Krishna Gupta, the assessee was the joint owner of the said property along with her sister Smt. Aparna Kumar. Therefore, the assessee was 50% owner of the said property. From the perusal of calculation of long term capital gain furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed following :- ( a) The value of acquisition of the said property as on 01.04.1981 was at ₹ 25,13,779/-. ( b) The sale consideration value shown was at ₹ 25,00,000/- u/s 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of valuation was referred to the DVO. The DVO has determined the value of the appellant s share at ₹ 59,32,450/- (half share of ₹ 1,18,64,900/-). The value determined by the DVO is even higher than the value determined for stamp purposes at ₹ 54,11,655/-. Under these circumstances, the value determined for stamp purposes i.e. ₹ 54,11,655/- has to be taken as the full value of consideration for the purpose of section 48. The DVO has determined the value as on 01.04.1981 at ₹ 70,000/- which is much lower than what the appellant has claimed. In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. had accepted the appellant s calculation with regard to the indexed cost of acquisition of ₹ 4,25,593/-. Since the reference for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before the Assessing Officer nor before the ld. CIT(A) that the property is a leasehold property. Nothing is coming out of the record that the impugned property is a leasehold property. Therefore, the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee cannot be accepted at this stage. 9. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the property in question is a leasehold property and, therefore, the provisions of section 50C are not applicable. However, a perusal of the assessment order and the order of the ld. CIT(A) nowhere mentions that it is a leasehold property since nothing is coming out from the record. It is als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
