9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see : Shri S. Rama Rao, AR For The Revenue : Smt. K.J. Divya, DR ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Hyderabad, dated 23-11-2016, for the AY. 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, deriving share income from the partnership firm Bhagwan Co. She did not derive taxable income for any of the assessment years. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee alongwith another sold immovable property vide Sale Deed No.454/2012 and derived sale consideration of ₹ 16 Lakhs to her share. The capital gain arising on the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30,000/- and even during the appellate proceedings, the AR of the assessee has not rebutted the conclusions drawn by the AO with any cogent evidence. 4. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating the proceedings u/s. 147 of the I.T Act for invoking the provisions of Sec.50C of the I.T.Act. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in determining the sale consideration at ₹ 36,30,000/- as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. He submitted that the AO should have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer as per section 50C(2). In this regard, Ld.AR relied on the following case law: i. M/s. Amarsaria Constructions Vs. ITO in ITA No. 868/Hyd/2006, dt.08-08-2008; 7. Ld. DR submitted that the case law relied upon by the ld. AR of the assessee cannot be applied to the facts of case as the same are distinguishable and further argued that originally, the assessee has not filed any return of income. Upon issue of notice only, assessee has filed the return of income. Ld.DR further argued that even though there is a taxable income under the provisions of Section 50C of the Act, assessee did not file the return of income till such time the notices are issued. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifically referred to the valuation provided in Schedule III of the Wealth-tax Act, there is ample indication in sec. 50C(2) of the Income-tax Act that the property has to be valued under the Wealth-tax Act since the reference was to be construed as a reference under sec. 16A(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. If the intention of the legislature was not to apply the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act for the purpose of valuation, then, in our opinion, there was no need for any reference about the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 50C of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, in our opinion, the manner laid down under the Wealth-tax Act has to be followed for the purpose of ascertaining the notional value of the property for the purpose o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
