TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Shri D. Gopal took the control of the land. So far as this fact is concerned, the assessee has not placed any material. When the AO has asked the assessee to submit E.C, as per E.C the person who purchased the land from the assessee subsequently partitioned the land and sold it to various individuals during 2008 to 2012 and again the A.O has asked explanation. The assessee has submitted that the land to the extent of 4600 Sq. meters appropriated by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu under the Urban Land Ceiling Act only left over 12 cents. In the assessment order, the A.O has noted that Shri Doraisamy has sold the property to the assessee and the assessee has sold the land to Shri D. Gopal, Son of Doraisamy and further, Shri D Gopal sold it to various parties. All these transactions have been properly registered with the Sub-Registrar and stamp value has been paid in all these transactions therefore, the land was forcibly taken over by Shri D. Gopal and appropriated by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu is not believed by the A.O - assessee has not placed any evidence in respect of continuous possession of the Shri Doraisamy and also land was forcibly taken away by the Doraisamy son D. Gopal. Thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ress sale coupled with the various factors/objections placed before the valuation cell, the action to adopt a value higher than the actual consideration received was wholly unjustified and not sustainable in law. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court relied on in TCA No.142/2019 in proper perspective while mechanically affirming the valuation report in direct contradiction to the ratio laid down by the High Court thus vitiating his action in that regard. 7. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in any event the assessment of income arising from transfer of land under the head long term capital gains overlooking the acquisition order of the Government of Tamilnadu under Urban Land Ceiling Act in 1976 itself was erroneous and incorrect. 8. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the consequential assessment of Long Term Capital Gains on the facts and in the circumstances of the case was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 9. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to submit Encumbrance Certificate (EC) and as per E.C, the purchaser had subsequently partitioned the land and sold it to various individuals during 2008 to 2012 and earned substantial income. The A.O has asked the assessee to explain the same, the assessee has further submitted that the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax Department in response to a query made by Shri D. Gopal on 25.10.2013 that the land to an extent of 4600 Sq. meters (around 1 acre and 14 cents) has already being appropriated by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu under the Urban Land Ceiling Act in 1976 itself. Only the land measuring to an extent of 500 Sq. meters (around 12 cents) was available to the assessee for his use and submitted that the sale of land itself is not valid transaction. The A.O after careful consideration of the submissions of the assessee he has observed that Shri Doraisamy originally sold this property to the assessee and subsequently the assessee sold the land to Shri D. Gopal, son of Doraisamy, and further, Shri D. Gopal sold it to various parties. All these transactions have been properly registered with the Sub-Registrar and stamp value has been paid in all these transactions. By considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4600 Sq. meters appropriated by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu under the Urban Land Ceiling Act only left over 12 cents. In the assessment order, the A.O has noted that Shri Doraisamy has sold the property to the assessee and the assessee has sold the land to Shri D. Gopal, Son of Doraisamy and further, Shri D Gopal sold it to various parties. All these transactions have been properly registered with the Sub-Registrar and stamp value has been paid in all these transactions therefore, the land was forcibly taken over by Shri D. Gopal and appropriated by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu is not believed by the A.O. We are also find that the assessee has not placed any evidence in respect of continuous possession of the Shri Doraisamy and also land was forcibly taken away by the Doraisamy son D. Gopal. These are the only explanations given by the assessee without any basis. Therefore, these baseless reasons given by the assessee cannot be considered. Apart from the above, as per the assessee request, the issue was referred to the District Valuation Officer, the DVO vide order dated 15.10.2018 valued the property for ₹ 45,20,000/-. The A.O by considering the same, recomputed the capital gains an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
