9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the impugned long term capital gain made in the assessees' hands. The same stands affirmed accordingly. Disallowance of claim towards cost of acquisition - HELD THAT:- We find no reason to express our agreement with the learned CIT(A)'s foregoing remand directions going against the amendment in Section 251(1)(a) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01-06-2001 omitting the clinching statutory expression 'or he may set aside'. The fact also remains that the assessees have not been able to prove as to under what circumstances they had to pay the impugned sum over and above ₹ 8 crores as per the terms of settlement. We therefore deem it appropriate that these assessees need to be afforded one more effective innings before the AO to explain the justification of ₹ 3 crores made to the twin recipients (supra) as falling u/s. 48(i) and (ii) of the Act; as the case may be. These assessees are directed to appear themselves or through their authorised representative; as the case may be on or before 31-10-2021 with all the supportive evidence; at their own risk and responsibility to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing for the conseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessing officer as sale consideration is based on the certificate issued by the Registering Authority and therefore the addition made by the assessing officer on this ground is based on credible evidence and reasonable. (iv) The appeal craves leave to add/delete, substitute, amend any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. (v) For these and other grounds that may be canvassed at the time of hearing of the appeal, it is beseeched that addition made by the assessing officer on account of long term capital gains from transfer of property be restored . 5. Both the learned representatives next take us to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion deleting the impugned addition as under: 5. Ground-I: Addition u/s. 50C: During the survey conducted on 14-03-2013 in the premises of M/s. Western Constructions a partnership firm, it was noticed that the land admeasuring an extent of Acres 06.02 Guntas situated at Darga Hussain Shahwali Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was given for development on 03-05-2007. The Development Agreement recognize the following family members as the co-owners of the land. 1. Smt. A. Girija 2. Sri A. Arjun G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate than later called on, value by the Assessing Officer. c) The land sold is not plotted residential site. In fact a long stretch of agricultural land. No expense has been claimed towards laying of road or site excavation. The SRO value suggested by the Assessing Officer is for developed residential site and not for a piece of land. There is strength in the argument of the Applicant. Firstly, Section 50C very clearly talks about value adopted by the authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer. The Applicant has submitted registered deed which very clearly says the sale value is same as the SRO value for the stamp duty purpose. The Assessing Officer did not verify the issue as to why the SRO value given in the registered deed is as per Acres and information called in a later date is not called for value as per Acres. The contention of the Applicant that this land is not subjected to any improvisation. That is to say there is no road laying or evening of the soil. The Assessing Officer has not taken these issues before coming to conclusion. There cannot be two different values for SRO, for the same land. In this background, I allow the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d/2016 and 1616/Hyd/2016 raising the instant sole issue fail therefore. 9. We are now left with assessees' appeals ITA Nos. 98 to 102/Hyd/2017 and ITA No. 205/Hyd/2017 (supra). Their identical sole substantive ground pleads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in disallowing cost of acquisition claim to the tune of ₹ 3 crores paid to Shri A. Sahdeva and Shri A. Krishna to the tune of ₹ 1.5 crores each. The Assessing Officer's assessment order(s) held in identical terms that these assessees had failed to prove the purpose of the impugned payment(s) over and above the compromise terms which allowed only ₹ 8 crores out of that claimed to the tune of ₹ 11 crores. 10. The CIT(A) has restored the instant issue back to Assessing Officer as under: 6. Ground-2: Disallowance of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- claimed by the appellant towards cost of acquisition: The Applicant submitted that they have made payment of ₹ 1.5 crore to Sri A. Sahadeva and Sri A. Krishna each. This payment of sri A. Sahadeva was received by his legal representative Mrs. A. Vimala Mrs. A. Vimala is a not Income Tax Assessee and is resident of Hyderabad. Sri A. Kr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
