9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted to accept the stated sale consideration i.e. 6711000/- at face value and not to invoke the provisions of section 50C. In this regard the appellant relied on order of Smt. Cheryl Maria Fernandes [ 2021 (1) TMI 620 - ITAT MUMBAI ]. The bench noted that the difference in the valuation remain after the direction of the High Court is only 1.04% and therefore, considering the specific exclusion provision which is benefit in nature and ld. CIT(A) has already considered the judicial decisions cited by the assessee has granted the benefit to the assessee. Decided against revenue. - SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, A.M. This appeal is filed by the revenue aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Here in after referred as (NFAC)] for the assessment year 2013-14 dated 30.06.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the ITO, Ward-3(2), Jaipur passed under Section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 11.03.2016. 2. The revenue assailed the present appeal on the following grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court granted the stay on the order of Rajasthan Tax Board order. The ld. AO contended that the said stay is for stamp duty valuation and therefore, he proceeded to tax the capital gain as per provision of section 50C of the Act and determined the taxable income at Rs. 47,37,900/-. 4. Aggrieved from the said action of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below:- 7. Decision: I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant, the facts on record and the applicable law in this regard. 7.1 Ground of appeal No. 3 being general in nature does not require adjudication. 7.2 Ground of appeal No. 1 is against the action of the Assessing Officer in reducing the deduction under section 54F of the Act to Rs. 15,30,658/-. Ground of appeal No. 2 is against the computation made by the Assessing Officer of long term capital gain at Rs. 44,52,844/- as against Rs. 52,190/- declared by the assessee. As both these grounds are interlinked, they are taken up for adjudication together. In the instant case, the assessee had filed her return of incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voke the provisions of section 50C. In this regard the appellant relied on order of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in case of Smt. Cheryl Maria Fernandes vs Ito (It)-2(3)(1), in ITA No. 4850/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2011-12) where Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai. The appellant further relied on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Shaista Irphan Mogul, Mumbai vs Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai dated 1st July, 2021. (I.T.A. No. 4916/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2016-17). Having duly considered the facts on record, the appellant's submissions and the judicial decisions cited as above, it is an undisputed fact that the matter of valuation for stamp duty purposes of the property sold by the assessee has reach finality with the order passed by the Collector Stamps as per the direction of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, and the value has been decided at Rs. 6781105/- as against the actual sale consideration of Rs. 6711000/-. With regard to the applicability of the provisions of Section 50C it is noted that amendment was made vide insertion of 3rd proviso with effect from 1.4.2019 as under: Provided also that where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the assessee for the year under consideration by ld. CIT(A) retrospectively. On the aspect of the matter the bench noted that the dispute of valuation of the property for stamp duty purposes was made by the Sub-Registrar, Sanganer at Rs. 1,49,83,640/- against which appeal was preferred before Revenue Authorities. The Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer vide their order dated 18-03-2014 valued the property at total value at Rs. 1,12,20,640/- for stamp duty purposes. Further appeal against the order of Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer was filed before Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, which vide order dated 2/12 / 2014 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6794/2014 stayed the operation of order of Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer till further orders. In the interim the Assessing Officer completed the assessment in the assessee's case by computing the long term capital gain on sale of property taking the value as per DLC value determined by Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer vide their order dated 18.03.2014 of property sold on less brokerage. Consequently, the deduction u/s 54F of the Act was restricted to Rs. 1530658 and after allowing deduction u/s 54EC of the Act at Rs. 40,60,000/-, the taxable Long-term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
