9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xecuted by the assessee. Therefore, they may not reflect the actual market value of the property as on the date of the sale. However, giving weightage to the sale instances, we deem it fit and proper to adopt the market value of the property at ₹ 2,000/- per sq.yard and direct the AO to recompute the long term capital gain by adopting the same and bring the long term capital gain to tax after allowing the other relevant expenditure and exemption u/s 54F. Assessee s appeal is partly allowed. - ITA No. 1243/Hyd./2019 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2020 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Sh. D.L. Narasimha, A.R. For the Revenue : Sh. A. Venkata Rao, D.R. ORDER This is assessee s appeal for the A.Y. 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 4,40,000/-), indexed cost of improvement (₹ 5,03,771/-) and also transfer expenses of ₹ 1,50,000/-, arrived at long term capital gain of ₹ 11,36,229/-. The AO observed that the market value of the property as on the date of sale was ₹ 27,50,000/- and therefore the provisions of S.50C were applicable. AO, accordingly, adopted the said value as deemed consideration and computed the income of assessee. 2.1. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) stating that the property was actually sold for ₹ 4,00,000/- only because of various deficiencies such as the property being located in a hilly area without approach roads and basic amenities, and as there was no development activity due to the G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dt. 06-03-2019 filed with the Appellate authority remain UNADJUDICATED, the impugned Order dt. 07-03-2019, cited SUPRA, may be VOID AB INITIO; 4. Also taking cognisance of the fact that the assesse-appellant OBJECTED to the identification of the Market value of the property at ₹ 15,13,000/- by the learned District Valuation Officer on various reasons incorporated in her explanatory reply dt. 06-03-2019 cited SUPRA, and such OBJECTIONS were not CONSIDERED and adjudicated by the Learned CIT (Appeals), the impugned order dt. 07-03-2019 may be DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND THUS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW; 5. Also giving due weight to the fact that the authorities did not identify and enforce the Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) in identi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aced at page 48 of the paper book. He submitted that the VO has adopted the value of the property at ₹ 3,025/- ITA No. 1243/Hyd/2019 AY 2008-09 Smt. Koppolu Suguna per sq.yard which is very much higher as compared to the sale instances submitted by the assessee. He therefore prayed that the actual consideration received by assessee may be adopted for computation of capital gain. 3.3. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of CIT(|A) and submitted that the assessee herself had requested the CIT(A) to refer the valuation of the property to the Valuation Officer and accordingly, the VO has submitted the report and only after considering the objections of the assessee at length, the CIT(A) had directed the AO to adopt the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
