TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Under these circumstances, the AO was not empowered to adopt any valuation in place of actual sales consideration on the basis of his own notions or calculations. Thus, we find that action of the lower authorities in invoking the provisions of section 50C and in substituting some other valuation was clearly beyond the provisions of law as applicable upon the impugned transaction. Under these transactions, we hereby delete the addition made by the AO. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 6012/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 19-10-2016 - Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Appellant by : Dr. K. Shivaram, (AR) Revenue by : Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. DR) ORDER Per Ashwani Taneja ( Accountan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecially when no possession has been given to the Assignee. 4. Without prejudice to above the learned CIT(A) and Assessing officer erred in adopting the Ready Reckoner value in place of Agreed consideration without referring the matter to the DVO for valuation, moreso when the Assessee had specif ically claimed before both the authorities that there were legal impediments for freely transferring the Asset and that the impugned land was full of encroachments, encumbrances and various litigations were pending with respect to the said land. 2. During the course of hearing, arguments were made by Dr. K. Shivaram, Authorised Representative (AR) on behalf of the Assessee and by Shri B.S. Bist, Departmental Representative (CIT-DR) on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncial Year 2009-10 and thus, he substituted the sales consideration at ₹ 7,23,24,899/- and after deducting the index cost of acquisition he computed amount of long term capital gain of ₹ 6,66,44,262/-. 3.2. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein detailed arguments were made by the assessee. It was inter alia argued that the agreement of the assessee was not registered and therefore, pre-amended provisions of section 50C were not applicable upon the assessee. The amendment was made w.e.f. 01.10.2009, but transaction was completed before the said date. The reliance in this regard was also placed upon the judgment of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. R. Sugantha Ravindran 352 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsactions was completed before 01.10.2009 and therefore amendment in section 50C was not applicable. He heavily relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Madras High Court as was also relied upon before the Ld. CIT(A). In addition to that, he relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Shimbhu Mehra 65 taxmann.com 142(All) for the proposition that if agreement for sale was entered into between the parties on 04.07.2001 when provisions of section 50C was not applicable, since they come into effect from 01.04.2003, therefore, provisions of section 50C cannot be invoked retrospectively. 3.4. Per contra, Ld. DR stated that no evidence was brought on record to show that transaction was completed before 01.10.2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rce in the argument of Ld. Counsel. Apparently and undisputedly, agreement to sale was made on 28th July 2007. The reading of the agreement makes it clear that intention of the parties to make transfer of the property is clearly discernible from perusal of all the clauses if these are read together. It was clearly laid down in the agreement that out of total sale consideration of ₹ 23,53,000/-, an amount ₹ 8,44,600/- was paid at the time of agreement dated 28th July 2007, and the remaining amount was payable upon completion of the transaction. It is noted that the total consideration stood paid upto 26.09.2009 in installments. Thus, for all practical purpose the transfer of the property was completed before 01.10.2009 as far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the stamp valuation Devendra 8 K. Chedda authority were subjected to section 50C application. However, after introduction of the words or assessable after the words adopted or assessed , such transfers where the value assessable by the stamp valuation authority are also brought into the ambit of section 50G. Thus, such introduction of new set of class of transfer would certainly have the prospective application only and not otherwise. Hence, the assessee's transfer admittedly made earlier to such amendment cannot he brought under section 50C. Applying the above said decision of the honourable apex court to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as by considering the scope of section 50C, we hold that the Revenue is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
