TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear 2008-09. 2. The identical grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under: ITA No. 173/Hyd/2017 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have confirmed the SRO value adopted by the AO for the purpose of working out the capital gains, since (i) the buyers are enjoying the unencumbered right over the property and (ii) the assessee constructed function halls on the land claimed to be under the ULC Act and superstructures on the balance adjacent and sold later. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have taken the fact in cognizance that the property remained at Section 10(1) stage of the ULC Act and that the land has not got vested with the Government, in the absence of an order passed under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that if the land was really under the ULC Act, the assessee as seller could not have sold the land and the buyer also could not have bought the land from the assessee. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have remanded the matter for verification of additional evidences/submissions made by the assessee regarding striking off of survey numbers of the land in all do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he computed the capital gains. The proceedings also made in respect of other two assessees i.e. Shri K. Pavan Kumar and Smt. K. Usha Rani in the ratio of 50:50. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and CIT(Appeals) observed after examining the details filed by the assessee, he allowed the appeal of the assessee and in respect of protective assessments also. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned departmental representative submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has wrongly considered the ULC Act which has been repealed by the State Legislature vide Resolution dt. 27.03.2008 and the assessee has unencumbered right on the property and has constructed function hall on the land and later on sold the property and he also strongly objected that the other additional evidences were submitted but the CIT(Appeals) did not give any opportunity to the Assessing Officer before accepting the additional evidences. Therefore, he requested the issue in this ground be restored to Assessing Officer for examination afresh. 5. On the other hand, the ld. AR r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esting that the provision of section 50C of the Act are not applicable as the land was covered under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and in last sentence of the paragraph below the table on Page 2 the AO mentions He (assessee's AR) also filed evidence to show that the land was covered by ULC Act . It can be seen that at time of entering into the sale agreement in 1995 and even at the time of execution of sale deeds in September 2007 the property was subject to the provisions of ULC Act (since the resolution for repealing the ULC Act was passed by state legislature only on 27.03.2008) and hence the property sold could not fetch the normal market value. After considering all the above facts and after verifying the documents, the learned CIT(A) in paragraph no. 7 of the CIT(A)'s order has rightly held There is no doubt that lands sold by the appellant was subject matter of ULC Act and hence SRO value cannot be taken as sale consideration. As regards the submission of Ld. DR that the ULC Act was repealed in the same year in which the lands were sold, we wish to state that firstly the sale agreements were entered in the year 1995 and sale deeds were executed in September ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Revenue in Appeal No. Hyd/446/94 and Hyd/25/2000 dated 3/12/2001. (c) In 1995 the assessee entered an agreement of sale for selling 6540 square yards to the family members of Sri Kishen Agarwal. Though this agreement copy is not brought on record, it is mentioned in sale deeds of 2007 that .......in the year 1995, and as received above consideration amount from vendee out of agreed sale consideration of amount. (d) For the sake of convenience the land was divided into. 8 portions and 8 separate documents were entered during September, 2007. During the course of appeal proceedings it was explained that generally the lands covered under ULC cannot be registered, therefore they were divided into plots and conveniently the survey numbers of the land was struck of in all the documents so that the registration authority would not know the fact that lands are covered under ULCA. (e) The Government of Andhra Pradesh vide resolution dated 27.3.2008 abolished ULC Act. Thereafter the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide its order dated 14.10.2008, referring the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh resolution dated 27.3.2008 abated ULC proceedings against the appellant' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
