9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ins out of such transaction. Accordingly notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee, in response to which, the assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs.4,42,900/- including capital gain of Rs.4,40,276/- on sale of agriculture land and claimed deduction on account of investment in house under section 54F of the Act amounting to Rs.2,75,939/-. The AO, while framing assessment, computed the capital gains by substituting the sale consideration received by the assessee with the stamp duty value of the property as per section 50C of the Act, and also took the value of cost of acquisition based on fair market value of the property sold as on 1.4.1981 as per valuation of Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) . The capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O and accepted by the Learned Assessing Officer. It is submitted that it be so held now and the addition so sustained be deleted. 2. The learned C.I.T.(Appeals) erred in law as well as on facts by disallowing the claim of the Appellant for deduction u/s.54F for a sum of Rs.2,75,939/-, which was thereafter revised to Rs.3,99,656/-. It is submitted that the Appellant is entitled to said claim of deduction u/s.54F and the same be directed to be allowed." 5. Taking up ground no.1, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that difference between the sale consideration received by the assessee, and that computed as per section 50C of the Act, requiring substitution of the same with the stamp duty value was, less than 10% and as per the thir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed one hundred and [ten] per cent of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration." 6. He stated that though the proviso was inserted by the Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f. 1-4-2019, the same has been held to be retrospective in nature in a series of decisions of courts. In this regard he drew our attention to the decisions of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Joseph Mudaliar Vs. DCIT, (2021) 130 taxmann.com 250; Maria Fernandes Cheryl Vs. ITO, (2021) 123 taxmann.com 252; Amrapali Cinema Vs. ACIT, (2021) 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore us by the ld.counel for the assessee, to be retrospective in nature. Ground no.1 raised by the assessee is, therefore, allowed. 8. Taking up ground no.2, relating to the denial of claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act, the ld.counsel for the assessee pointed out that thatthe same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A) in the absence of any documents furnished by the assessee to substantiate its claim of having reconstructed his residential house for Rs.6,75,000/-. He drew our attention to para 4.3 of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order in this regard. Ld.counsel for the assessee contended that he had not been given any opportunity before denying the claim of deduction, and that all necessary evidences to prove his claim of reconstruction of house we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
