9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontentions of the assessee is that where the difference in the sale value declared by the assessee and value determined by the Assessing Officer is less than 15% no addition is warranted - HELD THAT:- We find in the present case there is difference of 13% in the value declared by the assessee and as determined by the Assessing Officer. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Constructions Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [ 2012 (1) TMI 229 - ITAT PUNE] has taken a tolerance limit of difference in two valuations as 10%. Similar view has been taken in the case of Honest Group of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [ 2001 (11) TMI 1016 - HIGH COURT OF JAMMU KASHMIR] . The assessee before the Commissioner of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of assessee and confirmed the addition. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal assailing the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3. Shri Pramod Shingte appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist. The assessee sold agricultural land for ₹ 45,00,000/-. The cost of acquisition of land was ₹ 2,00,000/- and offered the Capital Gain arising there from for tax. The Assessing Officer took the sale value as per Government valuation and made addition of ₹ 6,75,000/-. The difference between the sale value declared by the assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of sale of agricultural land. The assessee sold the land for ₹ 45,00,000/- and offered the gain under the head Capital Gain. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 50C and took the Government valuation i.e. ₹ 51,75,000/- as sale consideration. The contentions of the assessee is that where the difference in the sale value declared by the assessee and value determined by the Assessing Officer is less than 15%. No addition is warranted. We find in the present case there is difference of 13% in the value declared by the assessee and as determined by the Assessing Officer. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Constructions Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) has taken a tole ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
