9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration of property at ₹ 16,00,000/- for further computing the capital gain of the said property, particularly when the request of assessee for referring the valuation to Valuation cell has been accepted by the CIT(A) and the valuation of AVO at ₹ 34 lakhs has been accepted by him and the AO has been directed accordingly. No justification in the claim of assessee to consider the sale value of impugned property at ₹ 16 lakhs in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. As far as the claim of deduction u/s. 54 it is not in dispute that the assessee has invested in purchase of residential property at B-40, Malcha Marg, for ₹ 29,04,841/-. AO while rejecting the claim of assessee u/s. 54 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. CIT(A)- XXXVIII, New Delhi dated 13.11.2013 for the assessment year 2008-09 on the following revised grounds : 1. That in the absence of service of notice under Section 143(2) of IT Act within the prescribed period, the AO has no jurisdiction to make an assessment and accordingly the assessment so framed by the AO in furtherance of such invalid assumption of jurisdiction by way of issue of notice under Section 143(2) is invalid and bad in law. 2. That without prejudice to ground no. 1 above, the valuation made by the Valuation Officer (VO) based on the Circle Rate adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority without properly looking into the other derogatory factors in respect of the immovable property, such as legal dispute go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of AIR information that the assessee had sold an immovable property at a sale consideration of ₹ 37 lakhs. The information so received was supplied to the assessee and the assessee was asked to file the computation of capital gains on sale of property. On perusal of the return of income, the Assessing Officer observed that in the capital gain section of the computation filed with the return was crossed by the assessee nor did the assessee show any capital gain or deduction u/s. 54 of the IT Act therein. In response to notice, the AR of the assessee filed a computation of long-term capital gains wherein he has taken full value of consideration at ₹ 37 lakhs, indexed cost of acquisition at ₹ 7,49,323/- and compu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. CIT(A), where on the request of assessee he referred the valuation of impugned property to the Valuation Cell and the AVO filed his report determining the fair market value of the property at ₹ 34,00,000/-. Considering this amount as sale consideration of the property, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to compute the long term capital gains after considering the sale consideration of property at ₹ 34,00,000/-. He, however, confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer regarding rejection of assessee s claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he capital gain section of the said computation of income. This contention of the assessee does not appear appealing to reason particularly when the assessee itself has furnished the computation of capital gain to the Assessing Officer in response to his notice. It is born out on record that in the said computation, the assessee itself has computed the long-term capital gains at ₹ 29,50,677/- and after deducting ₹ 29,04,841/- u/s. 54, has admitted the taxable longterm capital gains at ₹ 45,836/- as noted above. In presence of these facts, there remains nothing to say on behalf of the assessee to considering the sale consideration of property at ₹ 16,00,000/- for further computing the capital gain of the said property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
