9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property. 2. That the A.O. had framed assessment after adopting the value as per the provisions of Sec.50C of the Act in spite of the specific request of the assessee to refer the matter of valuation to the DVO. The lapse committed by the A.O. cannot be cured by CIT(A). Hence the order passed by CIT(A) and addition passed by A.O. ought to be annulled. 3. That on facts the addition made u/s 50C of the Act for Rs. 30,12,846/- is without any basis, totally wrong, unjustified, ill legal and unwarranted. i) That the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the various facts before passing the order. ii) That addition was made on the basis of agreement execute by the assessee, though the property was sold by her late mother. 4. That the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he rate of financial year 1981-82 at Rs. 3,50,000/- and cost of improvement in financial year 2009-10 at Rs. 22,470/- without any documentary evidence. He, therefore, adopted the prevailing circle rate in the financial year 1981-82 at Rs. 46,660/- being the cost of acquisition of the property since circle rate at that time was Rs. 10/- per sq.ft. and the total area of the property was approximately 4666 sq.ft.. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer determined the long term capital gain at Rs. 49,86,062/- after deduction of Rs. 19,73,216/- u/s 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 30,12,846/- on account of long term capital gain by observing as under :- 5. In appeal, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g confirmed and the grounds of appeal are being dismissed." 6. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that since the property is a leasehold property, therefore, the provisions of section 50C are not applicable. Referring to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana D. Shetty vs. ITO vide ITA No.6668/Mum/2016 order dated 05.07.2017, he submitted that the Tribunal following various decisions has held that the transfer of capital asset and not transfer of leasehold rights attract the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Since the property in question was a residential house having municipal no.49 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
