9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell the property to Smt. Sukanya Kamalakar Reddy only. Therefore, it is clearly a distress sale. Though the assessee has raised the objections before the Assessing Officer as well as the DVO, neither the A.O. nor the DVO have passed any speaking order as to why these objections are not acceptable to them. CIT(A) has also erred in holding that the ITAT has already considered these facts in the earlier proceedings. We have gone through the order of the ITAT and find that the Tribunal had only remanded the issued to the file of the A.O. for re-consideration of the issue on merits after calling for the DVO report, if necessary. Therefore, the ITAT has not decided the issue on merits and all these facts were never considered by any of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ultural income of ₹ 1,50,000/-. The assessment was completed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 on 24/02/2014 by determining the total income of ₹ 42,64,726/- after adopting the SRO value of ₹ 41,42,900/- as the full value of consideration as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act towards assessee s share in the property sold. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the said addition, who dismissed the same and on further appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal, the ITAT in ITA Nos. 121/Hyd/2016 dated 25/11/2016 has admitted the legal ground for reference to the DVO for valuation of the said property. 3. During the consequential assessment proceedings U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. CIT(A) failed to consider the plea of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has ignored the submissions of the assessee, though specifically urged before him, that the provisions of section 50C are not applicable to the property with defective legal title, which has been sold under compulsion. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the observations of the Hon ble ITAT, in paras 2 and 4 at page-2 of its order dated 25/11/2016, wherein it has been clearly stated that as per the assessee it is a case of distress sale, and therefore, the value is much lower than the guideline value, and the Assessing Officer has been directed to consider all the issues raised by the assessee, afresh. 4. The ld CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aishi and Mohammad Iftekharuddin i.e., the assessee herein, for a total consideration of ₹ 5 lakhs to the extent of 886 sq. yds of open land situated at southern side of the house bearing No.8-2- 700. The land purchased by the assessee and another was land locked with the property on the northern side and had no approach road to their property. Therefore, they approached the Court for an injunction against Smt. Sukanya Kamalaker Reddy. However, the Court dismissed the assessee s petition holding that the property was already sold to Smt. Sukanya Kamalaker Reddy and that the vendors of the assessee had no legal right to the property. The Court further observed that the property was sold by Mr. N. Mohan Reddy to the vendors of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Civil Suit for a total consideration of ₹ 6 lakhs. On perusal of the DVO report, it is noticed that the property which has been sold by the assessee was land locked and had no approach road. It is only Smt. Sukanya Kamalakar Reddy s property which had the approach to the road and since the injunction was denied to the assessee and particularly since it has been decreed that the vendors of the assessee did not have any legal title over the property, we are of the view that the assessee was constrained to sell the property to Smt. Sukanya Kamalakar Reddy only. Therefore, it is clearly a distress sale. Though the assessee has raised the objections before the Assessing Officer as well as the DVO, neither the A.O. nor the DVO have passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
