9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and are being decided in this common order. 2. There is a delay of 80 days in filing of the appeal by the Revenue and one day in filing of the C.O by the assessee. Both sides have already filed condonation applications explaining the reasons for such delay. After hearing both the sides, the delay in filing of the appeal by the Revenue and the C.O. by the assessee are condoned and the appeal as well as the C.O are admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Non-Resident and a resident of the United Kingdom. He has not filed his return of income for the impugned A.Y. In this case, a letter was received from the DDIT (Inv.), Unit-II(3) Hyderabad saying that during a search & seizure operation in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer issued another letter to the assessee to file the return of income for the A.Y 2012-13 but there was also no compliance. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued letter to the SRO, Saroornagar and SRO, Hayatnagar, for ascertaining the market value of land as on 1.4.1981. It was informed that the rate per sq. yard is Rs.1/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly calculated the cost of acquisition of the land at Rs.9,680/-. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, issued another letter to the assessee dated 10.12.2019 giving opportunity to file objections, if any, and show cause as to why the assessment in the case of the assessee should not be completed u/s 144. In response to the same, assessee replied as under: "During the financial y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... minees of the developer or to any prospective purchasers of flats." 6. Similarly, Para-23 of the JDA empowers and authorizes the developer to participate in all proceedings before the authorities on behalf of the landowner. He, therefore, held that the JDA falls within the ambit of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, since in this case the developer has in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property and is willing to perform his part of the contract of developing the said property and also dealing with the same on behalf of the assessee. Relying on the provisions of section 2(47) of the I.T. Act, the Assessing Officer determined the Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) in the hands of the assessee at Rs.6,77,04,992 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him for the first-time claiming exemption u/s 54F and on the basis of the arguments advanced by the assessee and relying on various decisions, he held that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption u/s 54F of the Act in respect of 52 residential flats allotted to him by the builder. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal by raising the following grounds of appeal. 1. he Td. CIT(A) has erred in law in admitting the additional grounds of appeal raised Dy the assessee seeking exemption u/s. 54 F of the Act without appreciating the fact that such grounds do not fall under purely legal grounds inasmuch as the assessee is required to prove a bundle of conditions as stipulated u/s.54F of the Act, warrant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant craves leave to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if considered necessary". 9. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the learned CIT (A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that the assessee had not filed the return of income despite issuance and service of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. As per provisions of section 54F, the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 54F, if he has more than one residential flat other than the new asset on the date of transfer of the capital asset. However, it is not known as to whether the assessee owns more than one house other than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purposes. C.O.No.11/Hyd/2021 10. Assessee in his cross objection has raised the following grounds: 1. The learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in not adjudicating the ground regarding restriction of Cost of Acquisition to Rs.1/- per Sq.yard. 2. The Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in not adjudicating the ground relating to Computation of Consideration adopted by Ld. Assessing Officer 3.The Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in not holding that there is no transfer on Development Agreement Cum-GPA. 11. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides. Since the appeal filed by the Revenue has been restored to the file of the learned CIT (A) and since the grounds raised by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
