9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, the addition as confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of long term capital gains in the hands of the assessee is not justified. Thus, the order of the CIT(A) fails and it is set-aside. Grounds of appeal no.1 to 5 are allowed. - ITA No. 51/NAG/2021 - - - Dated:- 28-10-2022 - SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI , JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Abhay Agrawal Revenue by : Shri G. J. Ninawe ORDER PER S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI , JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2014-15. 2. The assessee raised 5 grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for my consideration is whether the CIT(A) is justified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince it is less than 7% no addition is justified. The CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer is bound to take the fair market value as determined by the valuation officer and difference of 7% does not ipso facto authorized the Assessing Officer to take lower value. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of long term capital gains of Rs.6,45,261/- being the share of the assessee. Having aggrieved the assessee is before this Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR placed on record the decision of this Tribunal at pages 52 to 57 of the Paper Book in the case of M/s. Radhika Sales Corporation. He argued that on similar issue basing on same identical facts, this Tribunal held that the addition made in respect of long term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Wartha Road. Further, the DVO also considered deduction at 5% in respect of litigation of the property. The main contention of the ld. AR is that this Tribunal held no addition is warranted if the difference between the value of DVO and actual sale consideration is less than 10%. I note that this Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Patna in the case of Bimla Singh vs. CIT reported in 308 ITR 71 at page no.77 of the Paper Book. 8. On perusal of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Radhika Sales Corporation vs. ACIT in ITA No.1474/PUN/2016, this Tribunal by placing orders of Co-ordinate Benches in the cases of Dattatraya Kerba Lonkar, Rahul Constructions and Bimla Singh held no addition is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
