TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aluation of the property at ₹ 6,22,19,600/- and thereby non-application of provision of section 50C of the Act has rendered the assessment order so passed by the AO erroneous, in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. About claim of deduction u/s 54 F of the Act, the assessee seeks to submit that they had given all the details to the AO of the property in question. It was submitted that after sale of original property, new property was purchased by them on 04.04.2015, whereas original property was sold on 17.01.2015. In respect of these aspects, it is a fact not disputed by the assessee that old property sold and the new property purchased have not been reflected in balance sheet of the assessee. Even if, the properties were not to be shown in the balance sheet, as none may have existed in the hands of assessee as on 31.03.2015, still the amount received as sale consideration of old property should have been reflected in the balance sheet in Capital Gain account of the assessee, which assessee has neither contended nor has demonstrated. AO while completing the assessment has not looked into and examined these factual aspects. Accordingly, in the facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (ld PCIT) has exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The ld PCIT noticed that assessee had sold an immovable property ( non-agricultural land) located at Kindorana, Tajuka Rajuia, which was registered before the SRO Rajula, vide registration no, 88/2015 dated 17.01.2015 for sale consideration of ₹ 1,00,00,000/-. As per the sale deed, the stamp duty amount is shown at ₹ 5,49,000/- and additional stamp of ₹ 25,00,000 (25,000 x 100) has been used. Therefore, the total stamp duty paid for the said property is at ₹ 30,49,000/- (₹ 5,49,000+ ₹ 25,00,000) . In his return of income, assessee had disclosed jantri value at ₹ 30,00,000/- for his share @30 % in the said property. However, SRO, Rajuia has valued the said property at ₹ 6,22,19,600/-. The property was transferred by Shri Arjunbhai M Bhammar (share 70 %) and assessee (share 30%). Accordingly, Jantri value of the property in the assessee s case would be ₹ 1,86,65,880/-. This Amount was therefore, required to be considered under section 50C of the income Tax Act, in respect of his total income for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the AO, and (b) Denial of relief under section 54F for want of verification. Both the above points relate to a solitary transaction of long term capital gains on sale of plot by the assessee. The ld Counsel pointed out that AO had already taken a position by querying on Long Term Capital Gains during the course of assessment proceedings, while passing the order under section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has applied his mind and taken the possible view. On the very same issue on which the view has been taken by the AO, the Pr. CIT-1, Surat has taken a different view in the matter, which is not sustainable. The AO after querying and satisfying himself has taken a conscious view in the assessment order and therefore this cannot be amenable to the revision under section 263 of the Act, hence the order of ld PCIT should be quashed. 9. On the other hand, Shri S. T. Bidari, Ld. CIT(DR) stated that order passed by the Assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.11.2017, is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. For that he relied on para nos.6.1, 6.2 and 7 of the order of the Ld. PCIT and argued that assessee has not submitted the required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called for. The case was discussed with him. The reply/submissions/explanation of the assessee has been examined, duly considered and placed on record. However, no adverse inference in this case can be drawn on the basis of material present on record. 4.Subject to the above remarks and material made available on record, the total income of the assessee is computed as under: Sr. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Total income as per computation of income 91,08,060/- Addition: Nil/- Assessed income 91,08,060/- 5.Assessed under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Give credit for prepaid taxes, if any, after due verification. Issue demand notice challan accordingly. 11. From the above assessment order, it is abundantly clear that the Assessing Officer has not examined the issues, namely: (i) there being a differential of amount of ₹ 5,22,19,600/- to be considered under section 50C of the Act, and (ii)Allowing of claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, dated 26.07.2017 vide page no.8 of the paper book wherein, vide query No.(xii) raised by the Assessing Officer is about sale of immovable property and to justify capital gain. We note that assessee did not explain the transaction of sale of the immovable property and capital gain. The ld Counsel submitted before us (vide paper book page no.10), the copy of income tax return alongwith computation of total income which is placed at paper book page no.10A 10B, and contended that assessee has explained the transaction of sale of the immovable property and capital gain during the assessment stage. We note that copy of income tax acknowledgment received by the assessee from Income tax Department of CPC Bengaluru does not contain the detail of transaction of sale of the immovable property and capital gain; it is an acknowledgement of income tax return filed by assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that transaction of sale of the immovable property and capital gain remains unexplained from assessee side. We have also examined the assessment order, which is reproduced in para 11 of this order, wherein we note that there is no whisper to examine the transaction of sale of the immovab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
