TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Original assessment was framed by the A.O 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. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances (prior agreement of sale) existed and pointed 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had received part of the sale consideration of Rs. 20 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital asset are not the same, 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 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. Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
