9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... additions so made may kindly be quashed and delete. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order partly taking in to consideration our WS and paper book filed during the course of physical hearing on 05.11.2019 and providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard in the gross breach of law. Hence the additions so made by the Id. AO may kindly be quashed and delete. 3.1 Rs.18,22,250/- : The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.18.22.250/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of sale of agriculture land which is otherwise exempt(being out of Municipal Limit applicable and not being a capital assets) and also erred in the action of the Id. AO in taking the higher value adopted by the Stamp Authority in place of actual sale consideration mentioned in sale deed and received by the assessee, while determining the LTCG. Hence the addition so made by the AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the addition may kindly be deleted in full. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has also grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rekhiawaniyan Ki Dhani, Rigus, Kalu Ram, Jogendra S/o Mohan Nath, Jivani W/o Mohan Nath, Buti Nath S/o Bal Nath Jogi, Village-Ringus, Tehsil-Shrimadhopur (Sikar) at Rs.38,00,000 paying the stamp duty of Rs.4,00,000/- on 11-02-2005 in which the assessee's share is Rs.5,25,000/-. In the case of the assessee, the AO calculated the long term capital gain as under:- S.N. Particulars Cost of acquisition LTCG 1. Sale consideration 25,13,500/- 2. 3. Cost of property (assessee's share) a And Indexed cost of property 5,25,000/- (cost of property - 4,75,000/-& stamp duty -50,000/5,25,000x632/480 = 6,91,250 18,22,250/- Thus according to the AO, the long term capital comes to Rs.18,22,250/- and after proper verification of the above information from the record, the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act for the assessment year under consideration was initiated by the AO after recording the reasons as well as taking prior approval of Pr. CIT-3, Jaipur vide her letter dated 17-03-2017. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 17-03-2017 by the AO which was got served upon the assesee through Registered Post dated 20-03-2017 as well as physically on 30-03-2017. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 54B of the Act of Rs.12,87,500/- was not allowed as the assessee purchased the immovable property before the due date of filing of return of income or the amount of capital gain account should be deposited in capital gain account scheme where the assessee failed to follow the relevant concerned terms and conditions for deduction u/s 54B of the Act. Therefore, the AO did not allow deduction u/s 54B of the Act to the assesse. Thus after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the income of the assessee is calculated by the AO as under:- 1. Income as per return not filed Rs.Nil 2. Long Term Capital Gain Rs.18,22,250/- Total Taxable income (LTCG) Rs.18,22,250/- 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) sustained the action of the AO by observing as under:- ''5.3 The AO has recorded at page 3 of the assessment order that the appellant claimed the deduction u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the agriculture land situated at Village-Chirada, Patwar halka-Khorashyamdas, Tehsil- Amer (Jaipur) was purchased by her alongwith other three partners from Shri Sita Ram s/o Shri Bhura, Caste-Gurjar, r/o Village -Chirada, Tehsil-Amer, Jaipur at Rs. 51,50,000/- on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UBMISSION:1. Correct facts: At the very outset we wants to bring correct facts before your honor which have been ignored by the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) both despite available before them. The correct facts of the case are that the group of assessee's jointly (seven persons, in the ratio of 1/8th Suji devi in 1/4th) had purchased the agriculture land measuring 5.93 Hectares situated at Khasra No. 5295 in Village Patwar area/land record Reengus Tehsil Srimadhopur District Sikar for Rs.38,00,000/- and registry cost of Rs.4,00,000/- totaling to Rs.42,00,000/- on dt. 11.02.2005. Thereafter they have sold this land in two part one part by Smt. Santosh Devi, Smt. Suji Devi and Smt. Meera Devi for Rs. 43,50,000/- on dt. 17.03.2010 and other part by Smt. Prem Devi w/o Rameshwar, Smt. Prem W Devi /o Ramji Lal, Smt. Narangi Devi and Smt. Bhagwati Devi for Rs.54,50,000/- on dt. 23.02.2010. While charging stamp duty the Sub Registrar Palsana has valued the property at Rs.1,01,78,240/- and 1,00,54,000/- respectively. For your ready reference and at glance kindly see the below chart(Also submitted before ld.CIT(A)). CHART AT GLANS SHOWING ALL THE DETAILS AND POSITION Name of Party Land Purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has adopted the rate for the land situated at Road while the land of the assessee's were situated 200 meter inside the road or after leaving the one khasara from the road. And the rate for the land situated inside the road or after the one khasara from the road is only of for irrigated land was Rs. 3,94,500/- per bhiga and for unirrigated land was of Rs. 2,81,900/- per bhiga in the year 2009-10. Therefore your honor is humbly requested to accept the our above contention and delete the addition to the above extent on this grounds alone, Further we had requested to the ld. CIT(A) that if he is having any doubt about the above, then report of the ld. AO may kindly be obtained after getting full verification and examination of the issue, however he has failed to do so rather confirmed the addition which is against the principal of natural justice. 2.1 DLC Rate has been wrongly charged by the Stamp Authority: It is submitted that as per above para I, the DLC rate has wrongly been estimated by the Stamp Authority. Because the land sold was not situated at the road, but the same was situated inside the road or 200 meter from the road or after one Khasra No. of road as clearly mentione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in allowing appeal of assessee-Revenue's appeal dismissed. 3.2 The Honble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shivakami co. (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 0071(SC) held that Capital gains-Applicability of first proviso to s. 12B of 1922 Act-Proviso to s. 12B not attracted unless there is evidence that more consideration than what was stated in the document of transfer was received-Onus in this regard is on Revenue-Emphasis in those provisions is on consideration declared or disclosed by the assessee as distinguished from the consideration actually received by the assessee-Capital gains is intended to tax the gains of the assessee and not what the assessee might have gained-Shares sold by the assessee to related parties at lower value allegedly for safeguarding the shares from being taken over by Government in settlement of tax dues-No evidence that consideration actually received was more than what was disclosed or declared by the assessee-There was thus no understatement of full value of consideration-No capital gains under the first proviso to s. 12B was, therefore, leviable 3.3. In this connection we also relying on the decision of Honble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v/s K.K. Enterprises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority could not be taken as actual sale consideration and value shown in the sale deed had to be accepted. Also refer CIT v/s Smt. Raj Kumari Vimla Devi (2005) 279 ITR 360(All). CIT v/s Shweta Buchar 192 Taxman 67(P&H) Also refer Hussain Ali Bohara in ITA No. 564 & 578/JDH/2011 dt. 3.7 In CIT v/s Dolphin Builders (P) Ltd 90 DTR 75(MP)-Understatement of sale consideration of flates- When there was no evidence that the excess amount, if any was collected by G- Builders or even if it was collected then it was passed on the assessee. No addition could be made in the hands of the assessee. Recently followed by the Honble ITAT in the case of Sh. Jagdish Chandra Boriwal in ITA No. 216/JD/2017 dt. 01.08.2017. However the ld. CIT(A) has not stated a single word on these above pleases of the assessee 4. Benefit or claim have been denied u/s 54B: Further the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) both have denied the claim of the assessee u/s 54B by stating that the investments have been made after the due date of return filing or no supporting evidences have been filed in support of the claim. In this regard it is submitted that first here the LTCG is to be determined further what is the amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 (Del) relied on. In Explanation to s. 54F(1), it is mentioned that net consideration means the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset as reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer. The meaning of full value of consideration in Explanation to s. 54F(1) will not be governed by meaning of words 'full value of consideration' as mentioned in s. 50C. The value adopted for stamp duty is to be considered as full value of consideration for the purpose of computing the capital gains under s. 48. Sec. 54F(1) says that capital gains is to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sub-cls. (a) and (b) of s. 54F(1). In the instant case, the cost of new asset is not less than the net consideration thus the whole of the capital gains will not be charged even if the capital gains has been computed by adopting the value adopted by stamp registration authority. It is clearly mentioned in s. 54F(4) also that net consideration which is not appropriated towards the purchase of new asset the same is to be taxed in case such net consideration not appropriated is not deposited in the cap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome chargeable as capital gains under section 48 of the Act. Therefore, in the instant case, the provisions of section 54F(1)(a) are complied with by the assessee and the assessee shall be eligible for deduction in respect of the whole of the capital gains so computed under section 45 read with section 48 and section 50C of the Act. The decisions of the Coordinate Benches as referred supra support the case of the assessee. The subject issue was not for consideration before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and hence, the same doesn't support the case of the revenue. We are therefore of the considered view that the provision of section 50C(1) of the Act are not applicable to section 54F for the purpose of determining the meaning of full value of consideration. The ratio of Gyan Chandra has also been followed by the Honble ITAT Mumbai Bench(D) In the case of Raj Babbar V/s ITO 56 SOT 01(Mum)(2013) where it has been held that It is a 2t suggest that there is nothing to bar benefits of exemption u/s 54F in respect of the capital gains relatable to the FVC as per the deemed fiction u/s 50C of the Act. Clause (a) of section 54F(1) specifies that If the cost of the new asset is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not in respect of two floors (sic). Further, CIT(A) has not discussed the provisions of the clause (a) and (b) of section 54F(1) of the Act in his order. Actually, the assessee's house consists of Ground plus 4 floors. He relied on SB decision in the case of Sushila M Jhavari, supra and restricted the investment in first floor only and denied exemption in respect of the investment in other floors. Elaborate discussion on why such restriction was not given. Probably, CIT(A) is of the opinion that the Ground plus 1st floor is one house and other floors refers to other residential house. The said SB decision never disapproved the allowability of the investment of capital gains in a residential house, which may include two flats with one kitchen and the same are functionally one dwelling unit, may located at two different floors, may be adjacent vertically and horizontally. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the present case, where the assessee's house constructed include ground plus 4floors, where the Ground floor is a big living room, 1st floor: Kitchen plus 2 bed room; 2nd floor: three bed rooms; 3rd floor: three bed rooms and 4th floor: 3bed rooms. Thus, the said details whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn of income in this regard it is also submitted that the due date is not to be consider only 139(1) but also the u/s 139(4). And it is also very settled legal position of law that the investment in new assts can be done till the date of return filling u/s 139(4). (i) The Honble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the case of Pr. CIT vs. Shankar Lal Sharma D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 153/2017 19th December, 2017 (2017) 100 CCH 0311 RajHC (2018) 253 TAXMAN 0308 (Rajasthan) Where it has been held Deduction-Capital gains-Non deposition of net sale consideration- Rejection-Validity thereof-Assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and assessment was finalized u/s 143(3)-Assessee claimed for deduction-AO declined claim of deduction U/SS 54B and 54F on ground that assessee had not deposited net sale consideration in capital gain account-CIT(A) set aside order of AO-Held, in case of in Fathima Bai v. ITO, it was held that extended due date u/s 139(4) would be 31.3.1990- Assessee did not file return within extended due date, but filed return on 27.2.2000- However, assessee had utilized entire capital gains by purchase of house property within stipulated period of section 54(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction under section 54F in respect of the investment made in the house purchased on 13th October, 2014." In the case of Sabita Devi Agrawal V/s ITO 69 ITR(Trib) 231 Kolkata 19.12.2048 it has been held that Capital Gains-Sale of original capital assets-During assessment proceeding, AO found that assessee had used borrowed funds for making investment in capital gains accounts scheme-No relief was granted by CIT(A)-Held, s. 54F nowhere envisaged that sale consideration obtained by assessee from sale of original capital asset was mandatorily required to be utilized for purposes of meeting cost of new asset-It held that investment made by assessee might be sourced other than entirely from capital gains-Objection of Revenue authorities could not be sustained- Held: The P&H High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kapil Kumar Agarwal has held that s. 54F nowhere envisages that sale consideration obtained by assessee from sale of original capital asset is mandatorily required to be utilized for purposes of meeting cost of new asset. It held that investment made by the assessee may be sourced other than entirely from the capital gains. Thus, objection of the Revenue authorities cannot be su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, however, continued to deny deduction of long term capital gains u/s 54B towards purchase of agricultural land after due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1)-Held, when an assessee furnishes return subsequent to due date of filing return u/s 139(1) but within extended time limit u/s 139(4), benefit of investment made up to date of furnishing of return of income prior to filing return u/s 139(4) could not be denied on such beneficial construction-Capital gains utilized towards purchase of new asset before furnishing of return of income before either u/s 139(1) or u/s 139(4) would be deemed to be sufficient compliance of s. 54(2)-Assessee would be required to demonstrate before AO that investment in new asset had actually happened before furnishing of return of income by assessee u/s 139(4)- AO should grant relief to assessee u/s 54B in accordance with law, where it was found that investment had been carried out in new asset as contemplated in s. 54B before date of furnishing belated return of income u/s 139(4)- 5.2 Further it is also settled law that the property can be purchased in the name of relatives. And the ld. CIT(A) has not given any adverse view on the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e if there is no escarpment then the notice issued u/s 148 is invalid. 2. Reason to believe and not reason to suspect: 2.1 It is submitted that even under the amended law by the finance act 1989 the condition precedent or words, which continues right since inception till date, are "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect". The word "believe" has to be understood in contradistinction of suspicion or opinion. Belief indicates something concrete or reliable. Kindly refer Gangasharan & Sons Pvt. Ltd. 130 ITR 1 (SC), and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das, (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). 2.2 The belief of the Officer should be as to escapement of income and the belief should not be a product of imagination or speculation. There must be reason to induce the belief. 2.3 Further, the belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds. The officer may act on direct or circumstantial evidence; but his belief must not be based on mere suspicion, gossip or rumor. The AO would be acting without jurisdiction if the reason for his belief that the conditions are satisfied does not exist or is not material or relevant to the belief required by the provision of law. The Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r iota of proof that while issuing same. AO had reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the assessment year. Notice issued by AO simply for his own verification and to clear his doubts and suspicions to re-examine the material which were already available on record at time of passing of t earlier assessment orders. The legislature under Section 147 has not clothed AO with such jurisdiction therefore the action could not be upheld in the background of facts of instant case. One more redeeming fact which had direct nexus with the subsequent re-assessment proceedings and ramification of the same had culminated into re-assessment orders was the impugned order where AO rejected the objections submitted by Assessees pursuant to notice under Section 147/148. Order passed by AO in this behalf was not a speaking order which could not be sustained. In view of legal infirmity in the notice under Section 147/148 and laconic order of AO while rejecting objections Assessee the consequential assessment Orders were liable to be annulled.(para16) 4. Only in the Act there is a deeming provisions, which provide to adopt the value. But it not means that there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason and formation of belief regarding escapement of income. Merely because the stamp valuation authority has adopted certain valuation for payment of stamp duty, the same cannot be a basis to conclude regarding escapement of income in the hands of purchase, particularly when no tangible material has been brought on record to suggest the escapement of income except the Inspector's report which cannot be relied upon.-CIT vs. D.N. Pachori (2010) 189 Taxman 420 (MP) relied on. Recently the Honble ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur has followed the above decision in the case of Arun Kumar Choudhary V/s ITO in ITA No. 268/Jp/2015 dt. 08.09.2016 wherein in para 9 page 8 onward it has been held that "9. Evidently, the provision of Se. 50C are deeming provisions enacted specifically for the purpose of Sec. 48 of the Act. Sec. 50C(1) specifically provides that where the consideration received qua transfer of the land is less than the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority, the value so adopted shall, for the purpose of Se. 48 be deemed to be the full value of consideration received as a result of transfer. Sec. 48 provides the mode of computation of capital gain. A conjoint reading of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, which was reproduced by the AO in the reasons recorded and he, without any further inquiry thereon, i.e., without any independent application of his own mind to it, formed his alleged reason to believe escapement of income. The reopening is, thus liable to be set aside and reversed on this score alone. We hold so. The reopening of the assessee's completed assessment is cancelled on this count itself. And in the present case at the time of reasons even there was no sale deed in the hands of the ld. AO, there was only an information and information itself is not reason to believe Also refer CIT vs. Indo Arab Air Services (2016) 283 CTR 0092 (Del). 7. Hence in view of the above facts, circumstances and legal position the assessment proceedings may kindly be quashed. 8. Thus in view of the above submissions the Assessment order as well as notice U/s 148 may kindly be quashed and the addition so made may also kindly be deleted in full and oblige.'' 2.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 2.5 The Bench heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It emerges from the record that the assessee is a lady who has not file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed or submitted anything in this regard. It is also pertinent to mention that the AO has also denied the claim of the assessee of deduction u/s 54B of the Act against the agriculture land situated at Village-Chirada, Patwar Halka-Khorashyamdas, Tehsil- Amer (Jaipur) was purchased by her alongwith other three partners from Shri Sita Ram S/o Shri Bhura, Caste-Gurjar, R/o Village-Chirada, Tehsil-Amer Jaipur at Rs.51,50,000/- on 11-10-2010 in which the share of the assessee is Rs.12,87,500/- (1/4th share of Rs.51,50,000/) by stating that the assessee purchased the above property after the due date of filing of return of income for the assessment year under consideration. Thus, the AO made the addition of Rs.18,22,250/- which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). It is noted that the ld. AR of the assessee has not stated anything regarding the property being the capital asset and situated within the Municipal Limits. Hence, it is deemed that the property is a capital asset and chargeable to LTCG. Now the issue is that whether the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54B for purchase of land after due of filing of return and what amount is to be invested whether according to actual sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d same-In that view of matter, issue was required to be answered in favour of assessee and against department-Assessee's appeal allowed. Further the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Jag Mohan Sharma (Deceased) Legal Heir Nitesh Sharma v/s ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur in ITA No. 1089/Jp/2016 dt. 13.03.2018. Held as under 5. As regards the non deposit of the amount in the Capital Gain Account Scheme, we note that the assessee has sold the agricultural land on 30th November, 2012 and the house was purchased on 30.10.2014. Therefore, the investment made by the assessee is within two years from the sale of the existing asset and is not beyond the stipulated period as provided under section 54F of the Act. The only objection raised by the AO and Id. CIT (A) is non deposit of amount in the Capital Gain Account Scheme. However, when the assessee has invested the amount within the stipulated period as provided under the provisions of section 54F. then the substantial requirement as per section 54F(1) is satisfied. The Hon'ble Madras HighCourt in the case of CIT vs. Sardarmal Kothari (supra) Again in the case of Fathima Bai vs ITO (supra), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has reiter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s entitled to ascertain the purpose for creating a statutory fiction. After ascertaining the purpose, full effect must be given to the statutory fiction and it should be carried to its logical conclusion and to that end, it would be proper and even necessary to assume all those facts on which alone fiction can operate. The legislature in its wisdom has referred to s. 48 in s 50C for adopting the same value as fair market value. Hence, the deeming fiction as provided in s. 50C in respect of the words 'full value of consideration is to be applied only for s. 48. The words full value of consideration as mentioned in other provisions of the Act are not governed by the meaning of fut value of consideration as contained in s 50C. The natural meaning of full value of consideration refers to consideration specified in the sale deed Hence, for the meaning of full value of consideration as mentioned in different provisions of the Act except in s. 48, one will have to consider the full value of consideration as specified in sale deed-CIT vs. Smt. Nilofer Singh (2009) 221 CTP (Dell 277: (2008) 14 DTR (Del) 108 (2009) 309 ITR 233 (Del) relied on. In Explanation to s. 54F(1), it is mention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invested in the new asset, the whole of the capital gains shall not be charged under section 45 of the Act. The net consideration for the purposes of section 54F has been defined as the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset as reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer. In other words. the consideration which is actually received or accrued as a result of transfer has to be invested in the new asset. In the instant case, undisputedly, the consideration which has accrued to the assessee as per the sale deed is Rs 24,60,000 and the whole of the said consideration has been invested in the capital gains accounts scheme for purchase of the new house property which is again not been disputed by the Revenue. The consideration as determined under section 50C based on the stamp duty authority valuation is not a consideration which has been received by or has accrued to the assessee. Rather, it is a value which has been deemed as full value of consideration for the limited purposes of determining the income chargeable as capital gains under section 48 of the Act. Therefore, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purpose of explaining the meaning of the 'net consideration' mentioned in Explanation u/s 54F(1) of the Act. In effect, for working out the exempt income also, the deeming fiction does not have any effect in the circumstances where the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration whether computed as per the section 48 or 48 rws 50C. On this facts of the present case, where the assessee undisputedly invested 33 lakhs (1.4.06-31.3.2008) in toto and Rs 17.65.752/- (July 2006-march 2008) was invested during the specified period) mentioned in section 54F(1), considering the provisions of the clause (a), the assessee is not chargeable gains for taxation u/s 45 of the Act. It is noticed that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition on a couple of reasons, namely (a) the provisions of section 54F(1) does not permit invoking of the provisions of section SOC of the Act. Therefore, 'net consideration /full value consideration should be as per the sale deed figures and not as per the deemed full value consideration figures; and (b) the assessee is new asset includes only the Ground plus 1st floor only and not in respect of two floors (sic). Further, CIT(A) has not disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Prakash Karnawal v/s TO 49 50 587(Jp) where it has been held Capital gains-valuation Assessee sold property for Rs. 40 lakhs-AO took the value determined by DVO under s. 50C at Rs. 67.13 lakhs- AO reduced the indexed cost of Rs. 13.27 lakhs shown by the assessee and computed the long-term capital gain at Rs. 53.86 lakhs-Assessee had made investment of Rs. 40 lakhs in Bonds, therefore, the same was also reduced and the remaining amount of Rs. 13.86 lakhs was added to the income-Assessee challenged replacement of actual sales consideration by applying provisions of s. 50C-Deeming fiction as provided in s. 50C in respect of the word 'full value of consideration is to be applied only for s. 48-Since entire amount of sale consideration has been invested in bands, therefore, provisions of s. 50C are not applicable-Further as assessee invested entire sale consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs in the bonds eligible for s. 54EC, he is entitled for deduction under s. 54F.'' Thus by respectfully following the above decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench, it is held that no addition is required to be made on account of LTCG in the present case. As per above decisions for claiming u/s 54B on account o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 122 TTJ (Mum.) In these decision, the Hon'ble Court stated that in absence of evidence on record, higher price for sale of land could not be presumed from the consideration shown in registered sale deeds and rates of property fixed by Stamp Valuation Authority for registration purposes could not be taken to be price for which property might had been sold. It is noted that in this case the AO has not brought evidence of receiving excess amount. The AO proceeded only on the basis of the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authorities. Thus as per the findings given by the Hon'ble Courts (supra), no addition is liable to be made. In this view of the matter, the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted. 3.1 As regards Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the written submissions but has neither argued on these grounds of appeal nor brought any contrary material to rebut the observations of the lower authorities as the assessee has not filed the return of income. In this view of the matter, the Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee are dismissed. 4.1 The Ground No. 4 is regarding charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C which is consequenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
