9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale of property after receipt of the Valuation Report from the DVO in terms of provisions of Sec. 50C. Since, the assessee is one of the co-owners of the property sold by family members, by following the decision of ITAT, Chennai Benches, in other co-owner case, we set aside the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for re-adjudication after receipt of the Valuation Report from the DVO u/s. 50C. In so far as, the appeal filed by the Revenue is concerned, the main issue involved is deduction claimed u/s. 54F - Since, the main issue of computation of full value of consideration in terms of provisions of Sec. 50C has been set aside to the file of the CIT(A), and other consequential issues like deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parts transferred and the inherent difference in valuations. 3. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the 50-C on Long Term Capital Gains from the sale of the land, namely, the land at Perumbakkam village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Kanchipuramdist, without assigning proper reasons and justification. 4. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.103/Chny/2020: 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the Assessing Officer's denial of benefit of indexation as the Assessing Officer has rightly done so as contemplated in explanation (ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er M/s.Trimurthy Associates who in turn sold the land to the assessee. 3.5. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the payments were made to the 13 persons for removal of cement plant erected, filling the land etc., were routed back to the seller of the land M/s.Trimurthy Associates which proves that it is a tailor made transactions to suit the needs of the seller. 4. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income for AY 2016-17 on 29.06.2017 admitting total income of Rs. 8,13,600/-. The case was selected for s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file any evidences to prove construction of house property within time prescribed under the provisions of Sec. 54F of the Act. However, allowed deduction towards amount deposited in Capital Gain Account Scheme for Rs. 1 Cr., and computed net capital gains of Rs. 8,48,95,177/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee challenged adoption of sale consideration as per provisions of Sec. 50C of the Act, without the report of DVO to determine correct Fair Market Value (in short FMV ) of the property in terms of provisions of Sec. 50C(2) of the Act. The assessee had also disputed computation of indexed cost of acquisition, and also denial of deductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee towards deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee could not file any evidences to prove that acquisition and construction of new house property, was completed within the prescribed time limit provided under the Act. However, he fairly agreed that since, if the main issue of determination of full value of consideration is restored to the file of the lower authorities, then this issue may also be restored to the file of the lower authorities to re-adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The assessee along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that as per request of the assessee, the AO referred the valuation of the property to the DVO on 19.12.2018, but completed assessment on 25.12.2018 before the DVO submitted their report. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the AO is completely erred in adopting full value of consideration in terms of provisions of Sec. 50C of the Act, even though, he had referred the valuation of the property to the DVO. We further noted that in two co-owners case, in ITA No.2322/Chny/2019 in ITA No.2333/Chny/2019 for AY 2016-17 vide order dated 19.11.2019, the Tribunal has set aside the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to readjudicate the issue of computation of long term capital gains from sale of property after receipt of the Valuation Rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
