9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration declared and value adopted by Registrar or where no reference for valuating full value of consideration of property to Collector (Stamps). It is pertinent to mention that assessee had sold the land on prevailing DLC rate and Sub-Registrar-IV, Jaipur has adopted the same while registering the documents. Therefore, the addition made invoking the provisions of Section 50C of the Act is not as per law. In this view of the matter, the addition made is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1034/JP/2017 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) - - - Dated:- 12-7-2018 - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM Assessee by: Shri Pankaj Kumar Garg, CA Revenue by:Shri A.S. Nehra, JCIT - DR ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM The appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jaipur dated 03-11-2017 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 raising therein following grounds of appeal . ''1. That the AO had erred in initiating the proceedings u/s 147, the said proceedings are illegal and void. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) had erred in disallowing the FMV as on 01- 04-1081 and estimating the FMV at ₹ 50,000/-. 3. That the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the property sold by the brothers of the appellant, the Collector (Stamps), Jaipur had determined the market value at ₹ 81,58,722/- and since, the appellant was having 1 /4th share in the same property sold by the brothers of the appellant to Smt. Krishna Devi, the AO has adopted the sum of ₹ 81,58,722/- as sale consideration u/s 50C of the Act. Further, since, there was no compliance by the appellant before the AO, the AO in the absence of return of income of the appellant as well as non availability of the cost of the acquisition of the property under consideration has taken the cost of acquisition at Rs. Nil and has determined the long term capital gains on sale of the land under consideration at ₹ 81,58,720/- i.e. the entire amount adopted by the Collector (Stamps), Jaipur for the purpose of charging stamp duty. (iii) In the statement of facts filed with the appeal in Form No. 35, it was submitted by the appellant that the deal under consideration for sale of land had also become disputed and the case is pending for disposal in the court of law and it was still having the possession of the land. It was further submitted that it has received only a sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajasthan and vide order dated 31.01.2014 in S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 18755/2013 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21812/2013 in the case of Shri Lallu Ram Yadav Others - Petitioners and ADJ Others - Responders, it was directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan to maintain status quo as regards the possession, alienation, construction and creation of third party interest in the suit lands, pending the writ petition and the stay application was disposed off. It may further be mentioned that the registered sale deed executed by the appellant for sale of the land has not been cancelled till the date of this order. (vii) During the appellate proceedings, in the case of Shri Govind Narayan Yadav, brother of the appellant, the reliance was placed on the case of Hirer Lai Ram Dayal vs. CIT [1979] 2 Taxman 579 (P H), wherein it was held that if the assessee, even in the face of the registered sale deed, is able to prove by cogent evidence and satisfy the Tribunal that no sale, in fact, took place, the Tribunal has 'to necessary conclude that there was no capital gain'. It is to be noted that in the instant case under consideration, the facts are distin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pse of 11 years. This order has been passed ex-parte and not in knowledge of Assessee. Assessee had sold agriculture land in the subject matter DLC value of the agriculture land was ₹ 978085/- i.e. @ 995000/- per bigha. Assessee has applied for the certified copy of the order and is filing appeal against this order with the revenue court and the same will be filed within one week. Further, you are requested to please look into the other grounds of appeal and pass an order in the interest of justice and oblige. And for this act of kindness my client as duty bound shall ever pray'' The case was adjourned to 24.10.2017. On 24.10.2017, the AR of the appellant has attended the proceedings but no submissions were made. Since, the land under consideration is now valued by the Stamp Valuation Authority at ₹ 81,58,722/- and the sale consideration as stated in the sale deed was only ₹ 10 Lac, therefore, the provisions of section 50C of the Act are clearly applicable in the instant case under consideration and therefore, it is held that the AO was justified in taking the sum of ₹ 81,58,722/- as sale consideration while computing the long term capital gain o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estimated at ₹ 10.04 lakh thereof. The appellant has also filed a copy of agreement dated 10.05.2006 with Shri Babu Khan for construction of house property in the land area of 183 square meter for a total consideration of ₹ 11 lakh. It is noted from the remand report of the AO that very nominal entries were reflecting in the bank account of the appellant. Further, as per the appellant itself, out of the sale consideration of ₹ 10 lakh, a sum of ₹ 5 lakh was received in cash only. The balance amount of ₹ 5 lakh was paid through cheque dated 01.05.2006, however, the same was not credited in the bank account of the appellant. Therefore, at the most, the appellant could have invested a sum of ₹ 5 lakh only in the construction of the house property. Further, the valuation report was prepared on 11.01.2016 i.e. almost after a gap of 10 years and since contradictions were there, as highlighted by the AO in his remand report, it has no evidentiary value. The appellant has not brought on record any documentary evidence which may establish that the house property under consideration was constructed by the appellant during the time limit of two years from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; (b) the value so adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub- section (1) has not been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, court or the High Court, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer and where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, Valuation Officer shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). (3) Subject to the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
