9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -owners of their inherited property i.e. land at Bansdroni, 24 Parganas (South) having 22.2% shares. The said property was sold during the year under consideration for a total consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-, the assessee's share being Rs. 55,545/-. As per the information received by the AO, the value of the said property for the purpose of stamp duty was Rs. 48,84,368/- and the same was liable to the considered as deemed sales value as per section 50C of the Income Tax Act for the purpose of computing the capital gain. Since the share of the assessee in the said sales value was Rs. 10,84,330/- and there was no return of income filed by the assessee for the year under consideration declaring the capital gain arising from the sale of pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fair market value as on the date of conveyance deed i.e. 12.10.2012 as deemed sale consideration. It was contended that the fair market value of the property as determined by the DVO as on 05.10.2010 was Rs. 13,50,850/- and the assessee's share in such deemed sale consideration should be take into consideration for the purpose of computing the long term capital gain. It was further contended that there was no benefit given by the AO in the form of deduction on account of indexed cost of acquisition while computing the capital gain. It was also brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) by the assessee that in the case of Tamjidur Rahman, brother of the assessee and one of the joint co-owners of the property, the case of the assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... z. Tamjidur Rahman, one of the joint co-owners of the property was accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) and the AO was accordingly directed to take into consideration the proportionate share of the assessee in the fair market value of the property as on 05.10.2010 at Rs. 13,50,850/- for the purpose of computing the long term capital gain. It is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) vide his impugned order however did not agree with the view taken by his colleague in the case of Tamjidur Rahman on the ground that the 1st Proviso to section 50C having been inserted in the statute with effect from 01.04.2017 was not applicable in assessee's case involving assessment year 2013-14. In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
