9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t') relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and a pensioner. The assessee along with other four co-owners sold their property by entering into an Agreement of Sale on 03.10.2012 fixing the sale consideration of Rs. 4,50,00,000/- and received advance of Rs. 51,00,000/-. Thereafter Sale Deed was executed on 30.05.2011. The assessee filed its Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 21.03.2014 admitting the capital gain on his share of income of Rs. 90,00,000/- as one of the co-owner. Assessment order u/s. 143(3) was passed on 24.03.2015 making an addition of Rs. 40,40,225/- by invoking provisions of Section 55A and denying deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g an addition of Rs.52,73,470/- u/s 50C of the Act. 2. Both the Id. Authorities have failed to appreciate that on the facts and circumstances of the case the Jantri Rate of the impugned property ought to have been taken as the Jantri Rate as applicable on the date of Agreement to Sale and that too also as applicable to Agriculture Land. Under the circumstances of the case, no addition could have been made. 3. Both the Id. Authorities have erred in law and on facts in not properly appreciating and considering various submissions, evidences and supporting placed on record during the course of the assessment proceedings and not properly appreciating various facts and laws in its proper perspective. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the sale deed on 30.05.2011. 3.2. In support of the same, the assessee relied upon by the Coordinate Bench judgment in the case of Dharamshibhai Sonani Vs. ACIT, (2016) 75 taxmann.com 141 (Ahd) held as follows: "9. So far as the amendment to Section 50C being retrospective in effect is concerned, there is no doubt about the legal position. I hold the provisos to Section 50C being effective from 1st April 2003. This is precisely what the learned counsel has prayed for. In his detailed written submissions, he has made out of a strong case for the amendment to Section 50C being treated as retrospective and with effect from 1st April 2003. The plea of the assessee is indeed well taken and deserves acceptance. What follows is this. The mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the u/s. 263 proceedings in the present assessee's case which is against the principle of equity of law as enshrined in the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3.4. In support of the same, the assessee relied upon the Hon'ble Madras High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Kumarani Smt. Meenakshi Achi reported in 158 Taxmann.com 4 (MDS); Sangram J Patel vs. DCIT in ITA No. 377/Ahd/2018 order dated 25.10.2021 and also relied by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Rajeshkumar Shantilal Patel vs. ITO reported in 127 taxmann.com 342 ITAT Surat Bench. 4. Per contra, the Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the lower authorities and pleaded that the same be upheld and no interference is called for and thereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other co-owner while making the assessment of the same property or while valuing the same property. 4.3 The learned counsel for the revenue is not in a position to satisfy us, as to how the Commissioner of Income-tax dropped the proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Income-tax Act qua the co-owner, who had also adopted the same value for the property as the petitioner herein. 5. It is trite that if during the same assessment year the same quantity of wealth in possession of one co-sharer is subjected to a lower rate of taxation, it would be highly improper to burden a similarly situated co-sharer with a higher rate of tax. If such an action on the part of the assessing authorities sanctioned, it would militate against the princ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar relief. We find convincing force in the submissions learned AR for the assessee. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. So far as the objection of learned DR for the Revenue is that the case of co-owner of Shri Dipakbhai Dalpatbhai Rana, no scrutiny assessment was initiated, is concern, we find that this fact was brought by assessee at the earliest possible action. The Revenue has not taken any action for reopening the case of co-owner and thereby accepted the similar STCG on same transaction, therefore, in our view, the assessee cannot be treated indifferently for similar transaction. Thus, the objection raised by the learned DR for the revenue is not acceptable to us." 6. Following the above judicial precedents, we have no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
