9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 06.03.2014. Considering all we may herein observe that as per the 1st proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Act as had been made available vide the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017, where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital asset are not the same then the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of computing full value of consideration for such transfer. Ostensibly, as neither the agreement to sell dated 06.03.2014; nor the contents thereof had been doubted by the A.O in the course of the remand proceedings, therefore, as observed by the CIT(Appeals), and rightly so, the valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 11.12.2017 determining the assessee's total income at Rs. 82,84,786/-. 3. After culmination of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that a mistake had crept in his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 11.12.2017, wherein the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) that was disclosed by the assessee on the sale of agricultural land at Iskcon, Raipur on 15.04.2014 by adopting sale consideration of Rs. 66 lacs as against Fair Market value (FMV) of Rs. 78,97,500/- (as was discernible from sale deed), though not in conformity with the provisions of Section 50C of the Act was summarily accepted by him while framing the assessment. Accordingly, the A.O issued notice u/s. 154 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ointed out, no error in order u/s 154 passed by the AO can be stated. However, the additional evidence were admitted in the interest of natural justice and in view of the claim that intermittent lockdowns affected the normal functioning of the appellant. Hence, ground No 1 & 2 raised by the appellant are dismissed. 6.2 As regards ground No 3 of the appeal, the appellant submitted that the copy of the agreement to sale which coupled with the facts that entire sale consideration was received within March, 2014 lends credence to the claim of the appellant. It is also seen that as per assessment order, AO had verified the deduction claimed u/s 54 of the Act with indexation, purchase and sale cost. 6.2.1 The provision of section 50C (1) firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lacs vide cheque No.041586 drawn on Union Bank of India, Raipur dated 06.03.2014. Also, as is discernible from the copy of sale deed dated 05.04.2014, the balance amount of sale consideration of Rs. 46 lacs (out of Rs. 66 lacs) was received by the assessee in the preceding year i.e. F.Y.2013-14. For the sake of clarity, complete details of sale consideration received by the assessee is culled out as under: S. No Cheque No. Date Amount 1. 045186 06.03.2014 20,00,000/- 2. 045192 11.03.2014 6,00,000/- 3. 045195 21.03.2014 20,00,000/- 4. 039579 29.03.2014 20,00,000/- Total 66,00,000/- 10. On a perusal of the order of the CIT(Appeals), it transpires that he had in the course of proceedings called for a "remand report" fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings, therefore, as observed by the CIT(Appeals), and rightly so, the value assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of the "agreement to sell" i.e. 06.03.2014 was to be taken for computing full value of consideration for such transfer u/s. 50C of the Act. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) who in our considered view had rightly triggered the "1st proviso" to Section 50C(1) of the Act, we uphold the same. Resultantly, concurring with the view taken by the CIT(Appeals), we uphold his order.
11. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced in open court on 07th day of September, 2023. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
