Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 172 - AT - Income TaxCapital gain computation - application of provision of section 50C - adopting the valuation of land on the basis of valuation of District Valuation Officer (DVO) - assessee also made request for referring the matter to the valuation officer for arising on correct value of the land sold - AO made reference to the Valuation Officer for determining the fair value of the land sold by assessee - assessee submits that assessee was Co-owner of land having 50% share therein - HELD THAT:- As perused the first and second proviso attached with section 50C of the Act and we do not find any distinction of registered or unregistered agreement fixing the amount of consideration. Therefore, the submission of Sr. DR has no force. CIT(A) affirmed the action of AO by taking view that the assessee himself asked to adopt the value of DVO. In our view the there is no estoppel against the law. Further, the revenue cannot the benefit of ignorance of assessee, if otherwise the assessee is entitled for the benefit of First and Second Proviso of section 50C. In view of the factual and legal discussion, we are of the view that Stamp Duty Valuation as on 21.02.2012 has to be considered for the purpose of section 50C of the Act. Since we have accepted the primary contention of the AR of the assessee, therefore, discussion on the area of land / plot will become academic. In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee is allowed. Disallowance of deduction under section 54F - Lower Authorities rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that assessee owned more than one residential house other than new residential house on the date of transfer of original asset - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the assessee failed to substantiate by cogent evidences that Ashirwad Palace Flat is being used for commercial purpose. Similarly, in Sanjeev Puri Vs DCIT [2016 (8) TMI 907 - ITAT DELHI] the assessee in the said case was using one of the properties for professional office. Thus, both the case laws relied by the AR is not helpful to assessee. In our view the assessee was having more than one residential property besides Muktanand Co.op Housing Society, when the capital gain invested for purchase of new residential property in Raj Abhishek City Homes. The assessee was having more than one residential property, when the capital gain was invested for purchase of another residential house, therefore discussion on status of other properties for the purpose of considering the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act have become academic. - Ground of assessee is dismissed.
|