9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing grounds of appeal; (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made u/s 50C amounting to Rs. 1,61,30,431/- without appreciating the facts that during that period there was only one purchase and one sale of land and the AO has rightly treated the land transaction liable for capital gain. (2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of assessing officer. 2. The assessee in its Cross Objections has raised following grounds; (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as sellers on the subject, the reopening of the case under section 148 is bad in law and without jurisdiction which ought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action in the accounts of the assessee. On the basis of aforesaid observation the assessing officer presumed that the assessee was not doing any business of contractor as claimed by it and that sale of land attracts Capital Gain. The assessing officer recorded that the value of land as per Section 50C at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per square meter. The rate of land was adopted on the basis of order of CIT(A)-IV, in Appeal No. CAS-IV/100-106/2008-09 dated 12th October 2009 in respect of land at Survey No. 227,Bhestan, Surat for AY 2006-07 in case of Shri Kaushik Sureshbhai Reshamwala. On the basis of aforesaid rate adopted by CIT(A)-IV, the assessing officer worked out short-term capital gain (STCG) of Rs. 1.61 Crore. On the basis of reasons rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis of decision of CIT(A)-IV, Surat in CAS -IV/100-106/2008-09 and stated that the decision has no relevance in the case of assessee as the assessee has sold the land at the rate of Jantri price. The assessee further objected that, if the Jantri rate @ Rs. 5000 per square meter is adopted, the sale consideration would arrive at Rs. 7.84 crore and there is no evidence of such consideration. In absence of any evidence no estimation can be made. 5. The objections filed by the assessee were rejected by assessing officer in his order dated 11th January 2016. The assessing officer while rejecting the objection of assessee reiterated that allocation of expenses worked out is totally correct and that the decision of CIT(A)-IV, Surat in CAS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uiries that the land sold by assessee can be equated on the same rates. No physical inspection has been done; no finding on location of the land, size of the plot has been given. If this land is adjoining to the assessee's land, which could be one of the bases for comparing the rates, has also not been carried out by the assessing officer. The composition of two pieces of land being located in the same area which may be spreading in several kilometer is an absolutely absurd and fallacies comparison. It was further held that by no stretch of imagination, without making any sport physical verification, two piece of land can be compared to work out the fair market value. The assessing officer has simply borrowed the finding of CIT(A)-IV, Sura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g was given by first appellate authority, as the assessee was granted relief on merit of the case. Therefore, the assessee has filed Cross Objection. 8. In alternative submissions the ld. AR submits that the assessee is share holder of 21.75% of land. The assessing officer reopened the case of the assessee and made huge addition of Capital Gain on the basis of decision of CIT(A)-IV Surat (supra), however, in case of its co-owner neither their cases were reopened nor any addition was made. The revenue cannot treat the assessee indifferently on similar transaction. In support of his submission the AR relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Kumar Rani Meenakshi Achi (207) 292 ITR 624 (Mad), decision of Ahmedabad Bench in Chet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e land, size of the plot has been given. If this land is adjoining to the assessee's land, which could be one of the bases for comparing the rates, has also not been carried out by the assessing officer. The composition of two pieces of land being located in the same area which may be spreading in several kilometer is an absolutely absurd and fallacies comparison. It was further held that by no stretch of imagination, without making any sport physical verification, two piece of land can be compared to work out the fair market value. The assessing officer has simply borrowed the finding of CIT(A)-IV, Surat, without seeing its relevance or reference and applied the fair market value on the assessee's land. No addition under section 50C can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
