Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 880 - ITAT PUNE

2016 (2) TMI 880 - ITAT PUNE - TMI - Cost of acquisition - capital gain on account of sale of TDR as long term capital gain - assessee along with his family members owned an ancestral land near Parvati, Pune which was reserved and subsequently acquired by PMC - Held that:- As regards the contention of the assessee that since the land was acquired by the PMC in the F.Y. 1999-2000 and TDR was received in the month of March 2000 for which the gain arising on account of acquisition of the land could .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erefore the additional ground on this issue is dismissed.

Adoption of rate of ₹ 120.98 per sq.ft. as the sale consideration is concerned, we find the Ld.CIT(A) on the basis of the entries found on the seized documents of the loose paper Bundle No.12 has computed rate per sq.ft. at ₹ 120.98 per sq.ft. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not controvert the factual analysis done by the Ld.CIT(A) on the basis of the seized document. Merely because the department did not fin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r sq.ft. is upheld and the ground raised on this issue is accordingly dismissed.

Determination of FMV per sq.ft. as on 01-04-1981 - in absence of any satisfactory reply from the valuer whose statement was recorded u/s.131 on 15-09-2004 the AO rejected the valuation report given by the valuer - Held that:- We find a somewhat similar case had come up before the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sathe Biscuit and Chocolate Company Ltd. (2010 (9) TMI 1107 - ITAT PUNE) Tribunal aft .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd the FMV of the said land as on 01-04-1981 comes to ₹ 55.74 per sq.ft. if the ready reckoner rate of 1989 at ₹ 1,500/- per sq.mtr is considered. Since the assessee has adopted the rate of ₹ 20/- per sq.ft. as against ₹ 55.74 per sq.ft. as per the ready reckoner rate of 1989 and proportionately brought down to 1981 rate the same appears to be reasonable. In this view of the matter, we direct the AO to adopt the rate of ₹ 20/- per sq.ft. as the cost of acquisition a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ue of DRC as on 03-01-00 and 03-03-00. The details of utilization of DRC and transfers, copies of which are placed at pages 256 to 347 show the sales in different financial years. For example Certificate No.0002195 shows sale of 297 sq.mtrs on 01-02-00 to Shri D.M. Bhutala, another 392 sq.mtrs on 01-02-00 to Shri S.S. Raut. The assessee has sold 69 sq.mtrs on 18-10-00 to Shri Vimalkumar Jain and another 25 sq.mtrs on 11-11-00 to Shri V.D. Dhattar, 100 sq.mtrs on 19-12-00 to Shri Anjum Parvez Pat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the current assessment year. Although documents were very much available with the AO as well as the CIT(A) they have not considered the year of taxability on the basis of sale of TDR. Therefore, we find some force in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that correct income has to be taxed in the impugned assessment year. We therefore direct the AO to verify from the details furnished before him from the utilization of DRC and transfer certificates and bring to tax the correct inco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in accordingly. - ITA Nos.273 & 274/PN/2013, ITA No.275/PN/2013, ITA Nos.276 & 277/PN/2013, ITA No.278/PN/2013, ITA No.279/PN/2013, ITA Nos.280 & 281/PN/2013, ITA No.1501/PN/2013 - Dated:- 29-1-2016 - SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM For The Assessee : Shri Sunil Pathak and Shri Mandar Kharpudikar for Assessees at Sl.No.1 to 6, Shri K. Srinivasan for Assessee at Sl.No.7 For The Department : Shri S.K. Rastogi, CIT ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : The above appeals filed by the respective .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he case of the assessee and members of his family on 01-09-2004 which finally concluded on 30-09-2004. During the course of search cash of ₹ 5,50,000/- and FDR of ₹ 74,06,636/- were found and seized as per Annexure A to the Panchanama dated 05-09-2004. Simultaneous search action was also conducted at the residential premises of Shri Privthviraj S. Raut, Shri Sathyaraj S. Raut and Shri Sandeep Deo of Pune. 3. A statement u/s.132(4) of the I.T. Act of the assessee was recorded on 02-09 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as well as in the return in response to notice u/s.153A from capital gains. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO examined the seized documents according to which the assessee has sold his TDR to M/s. Kumar and Company. The AO noted that the Pune Municipal Corporation (in short PMC ) had mooted a plan according to which it acquired certain lands for its development plans. In lieu of the acquisition of the land, it gives certain development right to the person whose land is acqui .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nting power of attorney to a person, the land owner hands over the power for transacting in TDR pertaining to the said plot of land to the builder. When he gets the power of attorney he virtually becomes the owner of the TDR for that plot of land. The TDR for one plot of land may change many hands. 5. The AO noted that the assessee has been holding the following DRC in his hands along with other family members : DRC No. Location of the land Area in sq.mt. Zone Date of issue of DRC 2195 to 2198 P .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and property. A major portion of the family s land had remained under Government reservation for various social and development purposes eversince 1965. In 1992 the Raut family executed an agreement to sale with Kumar and Company. According to this agreement the land would be sold to Kumar and Company for an amount of ₹ 1.50 crores. Initial payment by Kumar and Company was to the tune of ₹ 1.25 lakhs. Certain amounts were paid to the Raut family in due course of time as well. After t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ri Sandeep Deo who was closely associated with the assessee and M/s. Kumar and Company. This page is written on both the sides. The front portion of this page has calculations related to conversion of balance amounts payable to the various members of the Raut family into DRC areas. For all these calculations first of all the total amount payable to the various members of the Raut family has been taken and the same has been divided into by 200 (i.e. the rate of DRC/TDR) and the area equivalent to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mily members contain, the rate at which the Raut family has transferred the land to Kumar and Company. The rates as per the seized documents are as under : Shri Sushilabai S. Raut Rs.100 per sq.ft. Shri T.S. Raut Rs.100 per sq.ft. Shri Jaywardhan S. Raut Rs.100 per sq.ft. Shri Narendra S. Raut Rs.100 per sq.ft. Shri Satyaraj S. Raut Rs.140 per sq.ft. Shri Prithviraj S. Raut Rs.141 per sq.ft. Miss Pushplata S. Raut Rs.7,05,000 lump sum Miss Hemlata S. Raut Rs.7,05,000 lump sum Smt. Ashalata Paith .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enhancement of rate by another 25% on the balance amount of ₹ 7,39,39,264/-. Thus, the total amount to be received by T.S. Raut and others is ₹ 9,24,40,080/-. To calculate the rate at which the land was transferred to Kumar and Company the AO added the amount of ₹ 1,80,62,000/- which was already received to the balance amount of ₹ 9,24,40,040/-. Thus, the total sale consideration of the land belonging to T.S. Raut and others worked out to ₹ 11,05,02,080/-. After di .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ut Rs.141 per sq.ft. Miss Pushplata S. Raut Rs.7,05,000 lump sum Miss Hemlata S. Raut Rs.7,05,000 lump sum Smt. Ashalata Paithankar Rs.7,05,000 lump sum Smt. Viaya Doke Rs.7,05,000 lump sum 11. The AO asked the assessee to explain the notings on those seized material. It was submitted by the assessee that no addition on the basis of calculations of seized materials should be made since he did not receive any money. It was submitted that the assessee and his family members received money at the r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

statements recorded of different persons and the statement recorded u/s.132(4) on 10-09- 2004 of Shri Satyaraj S. Raut and observed that in the books of Shri Satyaraj S. Raut the rate of sale of land was ₹ 140/- sq.ft. Further, the assessee has not produced the original sale deed between Raut family and M/s. Kumar and Company by which the rate of ₹ 80/- per sq.ft. was fixed. He, therefore, held that the sale consideration shown in the return of income has no basis at all. He noted th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat he only received sale consideration at the rate of ₹ 80/- per sq.ft. and not more than that. 13. The AO further noted that the assessee and his family members had been paid in cash and kind also. The assessee received Bungalows along with some cash at different occasions. Other payments received by cheque credited into bank account was used for fixed deposits. The brothers of the assessee namely Shri Prithviraj S. Raut and Shri Satyaraj S. Raut also received some amount by way of cash .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essee in the land is 2,24,565.66 sq.ft. he determined the sale consideration for transfer of land to Kumar and Company by the assessee at ₹ 2,69,47,879/-. 14. The AO noted that the assessee has taken the indexed cost of acquisition of land as on 01-04-1981 for his share of land at ₹ 1,83,71,500/- which is based on the valuation report prepared by a Government approved valuer namely Shri Nimbal, who has valued the cost of this land at ₹ 20/- per sq.ft. as on 01-04-1981. He noted .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of properties in the same area around 1981 according to which the land in same area was sold at ₹ 9/- per sq.ft. in 1984. 15. The AO summoned Shri S.R. Nimbal, the approved valuer and his statement was recorded u/s.131 on 15-09-2004. Both the reports were put before him and he was asked to explain why and in what situation the two different valuation reports were made for the same land. It was replied by him that the difference in valuation resulted because in the later report he had cons .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

valued the land at ₹ 20/- per sq.ft. in 1981. He replied that this calculation was based on certain assumption that there were certain hidden costs at 40% of the actual value of land. When asked to explain base or facts on which a hike of 40% be made in the value of land there was no clear explanation by the valuer as per the AO. He, therefore, was of the opinion that when there is an evidence that the market value of land in that area which was not under reservation was ₹ 9/- per s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e rate on which this award was given works out to about ₹ 1.30 per sq.ft. He noted that the amount for which the award has been given is based on the prevailing market price in 1977. Various sale instances of land around this period has been quoted by the PMC. The AO was of the opinion that the rate of the land belonging to the Raut family in 1981 should be slightly more than the value of ₹ 1.30 per sq.ft. and not at ₹ 20/- per sq.ft. as claimed by the assessee on the basis of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

herefore, issued a show cause notice to the assessee asking him to justify the cost of land as on 01-04-1981. 16. It was submitted that although MSEB had given compensation at the rate of ₹ 4/- per sq.ft. the assessee has not accepted the compensation being less than the market value and they have preferred an appeal before the High Court. However, the AO was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee in absence of any copy of appeal filed before the Hon ble High Court produc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ugh the AO had admitted that the seized documents do not contain any handwritten or signature of any member of either the Raut family or the Kumar company, yet the AO presumed that the documents are true and based his assessment order on the same. It was argued that the AO had chosen to rely on the same as authentic without even questioning the person who has supposedly written the same namely Shri Deo. It was submitted that Shri Deo in his statement u/s.132(4) stated that all such calculations .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion with the assessment of Shri Deo himself or in connection with the assessment of the Raut family has adopted the sale rate at the rate of ₹ 120/- per sq.ft. The assessee brought to the notice of the CIT(A) that the return of income submitted by Shri Deo and consequent assessment order passed by the AO show that Shri Deo had no pecuniary interest in the entire transaction nor was he an accountant of M/s. Kumar & Company or of the Raut family. The entire recording and various calcula .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the I.T. Act. 19. So far as adoption of ₹ 8/- per sq.ft. as against ₹ 20/- per sq.ft. taken by the assessee as on 01-04-1981 is concerned, it was submitted that the value of the cost of land at the rate of ₹ 20/- per sq.ft. as on 01-04-1981 was valued on the basis of the report of the Government approved valuer. The valuation has been done considering the land as freehold as on 01-04-1981 whereas the Investigation Wing as well as the AO have erroneously concluded that the lan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hority and is not market value at which valuation has to be made. It was accordingly argued that the basis of the valuation was flawed. It was reiterated that the presumption of the AO that the land was under reservation was incorrect as the lands were in the residential zone as per the Development Plan of Pune city in 1966. The next development plan was released only in 1987. 20. However, the CIT(A) was not fully satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. So far as the adoption of va .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er sq.ft. = Total consideration - Total area Rs.11,04,94,080 = - 9,13,262.64 Rs.120.98 = per sq.ft. 22. He accordingly directed the AO to recompute the taxable capital gain by adopting ₹ 120.98 per sq.ft as the sale consideration as against ₹ 120/- per sq.ft. adopted by the AO and ₹ 80/- per sq.ft. adopted by the assessee. 23. So far as the valuation of land as on 01-04-1981 is concerned he directed the AO to adopt the value of ₹ 9/- per sq.ft. for the unreserved land by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ining the fair market value as on 1-4-1981 at ₹ 20/- per sq.ft. cannot be relied upon. As pointed out by him, two different valuation reports showing two different market values as on 1-4-1981 were found during the search, each one showing a different figure of market value as on that date. Both had been prepared by the same valuer who had also mentioned therein that the report was being prepared by him after visiting the site. Upon being questioned by the AO, the valuer had no convincing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nces of acquisition by public authorities (PMC and MSEB) in the same area around the same time for which the value works out to ₹ 1.30 and ₹ 4/- respectively. The latter instance in fact pertains to acquisition of a piece of land belonging to the Raut family itself. The appellant has however, argued strongly that these rates are too low considering the market value prevailing at the relevant time. The approved valuer, in his report, has referred to an instance of sale @ ₹ 9/- p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e, Assessing Officer erred in computing total income at ₹ 1,96,53,988/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same ignoring the facts and legal position and their action may be held as erroneous and bad in law. 2. CIT (A) erred in confirming the Assessing Officers action of computing Capital Gains income on estimated basis at ₹ 140/- per sq. ft. ignoring evidence on record and their action may be held as erroneous and vacated. 3. Without prejudice to ground no. 2, it may be held CIT(A) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tably modified. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in relying on documents and statements without giving due opportunity to assessee and following principles of natural justice, and therefore this action may be held as nullity . 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Assessing Officer ,and CIT(A) may be directed to delete the additions made and confirmed, to vacate the same or may be suitable modified and just relief provided to the appellan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ipal Corporation in F.Y. 1999 - 2000 and the acquisition proceedings were also completed before 31.03.2000. 2. The assessee submits that the above referred land was acquired by Pune Municipal Corporation prior to 31.03.2000 and in lieu of the land acquired, the assessee had received Transferable Development Rights (TDR) from the Corporation in March, 2000 and accordingly, the gain arising on acquisition of the above referred land could not be taxed in A.Y. 2001- 02. 3. The assessee submits that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nature and all the facts are on record. Therefore, the same may be admitted for adjudication. Relying on various decisions he submitted that since no new facts are required to be investigated and the additional ground is legal one, therefore, the same should be admitted. For the above proposition he relied on the following decisions : 1) NTPC Ltd. 222 ITR 383 (SC) 2) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 3) Ahmedabad Electricity Co. 199 ITR 351 (Bombay) 27. After hearing both the sides, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t in the said decision has held that gains on sale of TDR received as additional FSI as per DC Regulations has no cost of acquisition and is not chargeable to capital gains. 29. Referring to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shelly Products and another reported in 261 ITR 367 he submitted that the Hon ble Apex Court in the said decision has held that in a case where an assessee chooses to deposit by way of abundant caution advance tax or self-assessment tax which i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

emplation of law, he may likewise bring this to the notice of the assessing authority, which if satisfied, may grant him relief and refund the tax paid in excess, if any. He submitted that the Hon ble Court in the said decision has further held that when an order of assessment is set aside or annulled and no further assessment can be made, the assessee would be entitled only to the amount of tax paid consequent to final assessment, and not the tax paid by him by way of advance tax or self-assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

which is placed at page 241 of the paper book (English Translation at page 242) he submitted that the assessee has handed over the possession to the PMC of 11,69,904 sq.ft. in Survey No.121A and 122A/1, final plot 537, 534A, Sinhagad Road to the PMC. Accordingly, the PMC has granted TDR to the assessee and the other family members. Referring to the copies of the TDR certificates issued by the Corporation, copies of which are placed at pages 256 to 348 he submitted that all the TDR certificates .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the capital gain, if any, arising on acquisition of the land is in A.Y. 2000-01 and the same cannot be taxed in A.Y. 2001-02. He submitted that in subsequent year, i.e. A.Y. 2001-02, the assessee sold TDR which was received in lieu of the acquisition of the land and since there is hardly any difference in the time period of allotment of TDR and the sale thereof, no capital gain is chargeable to tax on sale of TDR since the selling price of the TDR would be equivalent to the cost price of the TDR .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was no concrete evidence with the department to demonstrate that the actual consideration received was ₹ 190.98 per sq.ft. He submitted that during the course of search, the search party did not find any unaccounted asset to the extent of the difference in the sale price shown at ₹ 80/- per sq.ft. and the price determined by the CIT(A) at ₹ 120.98 per sq.ft and therefore adoption of sale consideration at the rate of ₹ 120.98 per sq.ft. is not justified. 32. So far as the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the AO was not correct and adoption of FMV on the said basis should be rejected. Referring to the ready reckoner of PMC, a copy of which is placed at page 353 of the paper book (with English Translation at pages 354 and 355) he submitted that ready reckoner rate as on 01-04-1989 of the said land was ₹ 1500 per sq.mtr. He submitted that as per Circular No.9 dated 03-10-1989 the value of the land as on 01-04- 1981 should be considered at 40% of the value as on 1989. Considering the said cir .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ubmitted that in that case the issue involved was regarding the determination of FMV as on 01-04-1981. The assessee had adopted the FMV at ₹ 1230 per sq.mtr. whereas the AO adopted the FMV at ₹ 15.30 per sq. mtr. The Tribunal considered the fact that stamp valuation authorities had determined the FMV of the land as on 01-04-1989 at ₹ 1000 per sq.mtr. The Tribunal noted that the Town Planning Department of Pune has issued a Circular as per which the rate of the said land as on 0 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Chocolate Company Ltd. (Supra) the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that by considering the ready reckoner rate of 1989 the FMV of the said land as on 01-04-1981 will be ₹ 55.74 per sq.ft. 34. Referring to page 355 of the paper book the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the calculation of land rate by following the above proposition as on 01-04-1981 as per ready reckoner according to which the rate per sq.ft. comes to ₹ 55.74 per sq.ft., the detai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n 01-04-1981, therefore, the same being less than ₹ 55.74 per sq.ft. calculated above the value adopted by the assessee should be accepted. 36. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that there has been an error in considering actual area transferred by the family. In the return of income the assessee has computed capital gain by considering the area of land at 231426 sq.ft. The AO in the assessment order has considered the area at 224565 sq.ft. Referring to page 357 of the pap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oned in the above table. 37. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand strongly supported the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that the Government has acquired the ancestral land held by the assessee and family members and in lieu of the same the Government had granted TDR. After the search was conducted on 01-09-2004 the assessee filed the return of income on 11-03-2005. In response to notice u/s.153A the assessee and other family members had shown capital gain on sale of land whic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion of year of taxability was neither raised before the AO or before the CIT(A) and the assessee in the additional ground before the Tribunal has raised for the first time the issue regarding the year of taxability. He submitted that the assessee is now stating that capital gain can be brought to tax only in A.Y. 2000- 01 and not in A.Y. 2001-02 because possession was given to the Government before March 2000 and Government has also issued TDR before March 2000. He submitted that it cannot be sa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

brought to tax only in A.Y. 2000-01 and not in A.Y. 2001-02. 38. So far as sale of TDR in A.Y. 2001-02 and 2002-03 are concerned he submitted that the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that no 147 proceedings can be initiated in 153A assessment is incorrect. He submitted that this cannot be the proposition. He submitted that the Tribunal has got ample power to give direction to bring the income to tax in the correct assessment year. For the above proposition he relied on the follow .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his rejoinder submitted that even if a direction is given but it is not clear as to under which provision the Tribunal can give direction. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. RadheshyamB. Agrawal vide ITA Nos. 160 and 161/PN/2009 order dated 13-03-2015 for A.Yrs. 2000-01 and 2001-02 he submitted that the Tribunal, following the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of DHFL Venture Capital Fund Vs. ITO .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find in the instant case the assessee along with his family members owned an ancestral land near Parvati, Pune which was reserved and subsequently acquired by PMC. On acquisition of the land the PMC granted the TDR to the assessee and other members. The land was under reservation since 1965. In the year 1992 the Raut family executed an agreement .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 01-04-1981 at ₹ 20/- per sq.ft. and the sale value of TDR at ₹ 80/- per sq.ft . The AO on the basis of documents seized during the course of search from the premises of the assessee and other family members on 01-09-2004 determined the FMV as on 01-04-1981 at ₹ 8/- per sq.ft. and the sale consideration of the TDR at ₹ 120/- per sq.ft. We find in appeal the Ld.CIT(A) on the basis of the seized documents found from the premises of the assessee considered the rate per sq .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot find any unaccounted asset to that extent and therefore adoption of sale consideration at the rate of ₹ 120.98 per sq.ft. is not justified. 42. So far as the adoption of ₹ 9/- per sq.ft. as on 01-04-1981 is concerned it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that as per Circular No.9 dated 03-10-1989 the value of land as on 01-04-1981 should be considered at 40% of the value as on 1989. 43. So far as the additional grounds are concerned it is the argument of the Ld. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on relatable to this year can be brought to tax. It is also the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there are certain clerical errors as regards the extent of TDR sold. 44. We have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the assessee, vis-à-vis the material found and seized during the course of search. As regards the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that since the land was acquired by the PMC in the F.Y. 1999-2000 and TDR was received in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

annot be taxed in this year because it relates to A.Y. 2000- 2001 is without any merit. Therefore the additional ground on this issue is dismissed. 45. So far as adoption of rate of ₹ 120.98 per sq.ft. as the sale consideration is concerned, we find the Ld.CIT(A) on the basis of the entries found on the seized documents at page 41 of the loose paper Bundle No.12 has computed rate per sq.ft. at ₹ 120.98 per sq.ft. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not controvert the factual analy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e assessee against the same the order of the CIT(A) determining the rate per sq.ft. at ₹ 120.98 per sq.ft. is upheld and the ground raised on this issue is accordingly dismissed. 46. Now coming to the issue of FMV per sq.ft. as on 01-04-1981, we find the assessee on the basis of valuation report prepared by the Government approved valuer namely Shri S.R. Nimbal, valued the cost of this land at ₹ 20/- per sq.ft. as on 01-04-1981. We find the AO referred to the 2 valuation reports prep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

presence of water tank on that land for which the second valuation report was prepared was disbelieved by the AO. Further, the AO also referred to the document found and seized from the residence of Shri Sandeep Deo that PMC has given an award of ₹ 98,180/- in lieu of acquisition of land at Parvati, Pune belonging to Shri L.M. Raut. According to the said award given in 1977 for an area acquired for PMC water tank is 6567.20 sq.mtrs for which the rate works out to about ₹ 1.30 per sq .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he road and therefore better than the land belonging to Shri L.M. Raut situated on the hill top. The above submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not be controverted by the Ld. Departmental Representative. We find from the Notification furnished by the assessee in the paper book pages 353 and 354 that the ready reckoner rate as on 01-04-1981 of the said land was ₹ 1,500/- per sq.mtr. As per Circular No.9 dated 03-10-1989 the ready reckoner rates for stamp valuation have been .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r sq.mtr whereas the AO adopted the FMV of ₹ 15.23/- per sq.mtr. The Tribunal after considering the above circular noted that the stamp valuation authorities had determined the FMV of the land as on 01-04-1989 at ₹ 1,000/- per sq.mtr. The Tribunal after considering the above circular considered the rate of the land as on 01-04-1981 at 40% of the value determined as on 01-04-1989. After considering the fact that the property of the assessee was having at a better location and holding .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

₹ 55.74 per sq.ft. as per the ready reckoner rate of 1989 and proportionately brought down to 1981 rate the same appears to be reasonable. In this view of the matter, we direct the AO to adopt the rate of ₹ 20/- per sq.ft. as the cost of acquisition as on 01-04-1981 and compute the capital gain. 49. So far as the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the entire amount cannot be taxed in this year since the assessee has sold the TDRs in different assessment years, we find .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fferent financial years. For example Certificate No.0002195 shows sale of 297 sq.mtrs on 01-02-00 to Shri D.M. Bhutala, another 392 sq.mtrs on 01-02-00 to Shri S.S. Raut. The assessee has sold 69 sq.mtrs on 18-10-00 to Shri Vimalkumar Jain and another 25 sq.mtrs on 11-11-00 to Shri V.D. Dhattar, 100 sq.mtrs on 19-12-00 to Shri Anjum Parvez Patel. The assessee has sold 62 sq.mtrs on 27-04-2002 to Shri Anjum Parvez Patel. As per Certificate No.0002196 the assessee has sold 561 sq.mtrs to Shri Vima .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on the basis of sale of TDR. Therefore, we find some force in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that correct income has to be taxed in the impugned assessment year. We therefore direct the AO to verify from the details furnished before him from the utilization of DRC and transfer certificates and bring to tax the correct income for the impugned assessment year. 50. So far as sale proceeds in the assessment years other than the impugned assessment year the AO will follow due pro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the assessee the total area allotted was 1212360 sq.ft. and the share of the family members as per page 357 of the paper book is as under : Shri Tapowardhan V. Raut 200393 sq.ft. Shri Jaywardhan S. Raut 200393 sq.ft. Shri Narendra S. Raut 200393 sq.ft. Miss Sushilabai S. Raut 200393 sq.ft. Miss Pushplata S. Raut 200393 sq.ft. Miss Hemlata S. Raut 200393 sq.ft. We therefore restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the exact area considering the actual area of TDR sold an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t A.Y. 2001-02 4 ITA No.279/PN/2013 Smt. Hemlata Sayajirao Raut A.Y. 2001-02 5 ITA No.280/PN/2013 Shri Narendra Sayajirao Raut A.Y. 2001-02 53. We find the grounds by the above assessees are identical to grounds taken in ITA No.276/PN/2013. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the assessee have been partly allowed for statistical purposes. Following similar reasonings the grounds raised by the above assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.277/PN/2013 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

noring evidence on record and their action may be held as erroneous and vacated. 3. Without prejudice to ground no. 2, it may be held CIT(A) 's action in directing Assessing Officer to adopt rate @ ₹ 120.98 per sq. ft as against ₹ 120/- results in enhancing assessment without due process & may be held as bad in law and be set aside as illegal. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case Assessing Officer and CIT(A) ignored the valuation report of registered valuer determini .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

directed to delete the additions made and confirmed, to vacate the same or may be suitable modified and just relief provided to the appellant. 7. The Appellant craves leave for the right to raise additional ground, modify the grounds raised and/or produce additional evidence at the time of hearing. 55. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing did not press grounds of appeal No. 1 to 3 and grounds of appeal No.5 for which the Ld. Departmental Representative has no objection. Accor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and the rate of ₹ 20/- per sq.ft as on 01-04-1981 has been accepted. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed. 58. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the impugned assessment year is partly allowed. 59. Identical grounds have been taken by the other family members, the details of which are given below : Sl.No. ITA No. Name of the assessee Asst. Year 1 ITA No.274/PN/2013 Shri Jayawardhan Sayajirao Raut A.Y. 2005-06 2 ITA No.281/PN/2013 Shri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version