9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property after taking considering various facts and circumstances of the case. Before us neither the assessee has come forward nor filed any submissions or any documentary evidence to substantiate the various grounds of appeal. In absence of any evidence we are unable to deviate from the order of lower authorities which we affirm. Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. - ITA No. 632/SRT/2018 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2022 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Ms. Anupma Singla, Sr.DR ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is Non-resident Indian (NRI). The case of assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act on 14.03.2016.. The Assessing Officer recorded the reasons that in this case he has been received information regarding the sale of property from DDIT (Inv.)-III, Surat, through ITO, Ward-1 as the assessee was identified as non-filer in the ITD system. The assessee has not filed her return of income for the assessment year under consideration. The assessee sold property during the year at ₹ 4,50,000/-, whereas the assessee paid stamp duty at ₹ 64,450/-. According to the Stamp Valuation Authority, value of property determined at ₹ 13,15,306/-. The case attracts application of section 50C of the Act. On the basis of such in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow cause as to why the value of ₹ 13,15,306/- should not be treated as full value of consideration as per provisions of section 50C of the Act and capital gain should not be recomputed on this amount of sale consideration. 4. The assessee filed her reply dated 21.11.2017. In the reply, the assessee stated that she has taken market value at FMV as per the valuation report of Assistant valuation officer of Income Tax Department, Surat dated 26.052.2017. Who adopted the rate of land as on 07.07.2009 at ₹ 414/- per Sq. Mt. The assessee sold area 1686/-Sq. meter, the fair market value is worked out at ₹ 6,98,004/- ( 1686 sq, mt.*414) the assessee received sale consideration of ₹ 7,33,410/- and the sale consideration of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee sold 1686 Sq. Mt. and accordingly worked out indexation cost of ₹ 42,230/- and accordingly recomputed capital gain of ₹ 6,76,110/- and brought the same to taxation. 5. Aggrieved by the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before ld. CIT(A) the assessee challenged the validity of reassessment as well as addition of long term capital gain. The assessee filed her written submission, the submission of assessee is recorded in paras 4 and 5 of the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee upheld the order of ld. CIT(A) on reopening as well as to make long term capital gain. On the validity of reopening of ld. CIT(A) held that no specific gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in on the basis of report of DVO. The assessee neither before the Assessing Officer nor before ld. CIT(A) could substantiate about the loss on account of long term capital gain as claimed. Even now the assessee has not furnished any evidence to prove otherwise than the findings of lower authorities. 8. We have considered the submission of ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue, the order of lower authorities and the statement of fact mentioned in Form 35 filed before ld. CIT(A). We find that the Assessing Officer that made addition of long term capital gain on the basis of valuation report of DVO and held that the assessee has earned long term capital gain of ₹ 6,76,110/-. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by taking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
