TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant : Shri Rajeev Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri A.K. Singh , Sr. D.R. ORDER PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed by assessee, being ITA No.19/Alld./2023, is directed against an appellate order dated 26.12.2022 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Allahabad/10606/2019-20 (DIN Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048239383(1)) passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi( hereinafter called the CIT(A) ),for assessment year(ay):2017-18, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from assessment order dated 28th December, 2019 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called the AO ) under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961(hereinafter called the Act ) .We have heard this appeal through physical hearing mode in Open Court proceedings . 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No. 19/Alld./2023 for assessment year 2017-18, in memo of appeal filed with Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad(hereinafter called the tribunal ) , reads as under:- 1.That the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) erred not to deliver his judgment or decision on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fferential between the value adopted by government authorities for levy of stamp duly on transfer of property which was Rs. 15,78,000/- as against sale consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- shown by the assessee, vide assessment order dated 28.12.2019 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. This is the solitary issue in dispute. 4. Aggrieved by assessment framed by the AO, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A), and made following submissions before Learned CIT(A):- 6. CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT: 6.1 During the course of appellate proceedings, with regard to above issue, the appellant submitted as under: Reason of selection for Scrutiny- The assessee appellant filed his income tax return by e-filing mode on 12.02.18 declaring total income of Rs. 4,78,720.00 and the case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine CAPITAL GAINS/LOSS ON SALE OF PROPERTY . Point wise Submissions/arguments- 1- In response to the Ist Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/2018- 19/1011650739(1) Dated 20.08.2018(Date Fixed for response was 05-09- 18), the assessee appellant was unable to furnish his reply online electronically through E-Proceeding because E- Proceeding faci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Date Fixed for response was 08-11- 19) repeating contends of IInd Notice again, the assessee appellant filed his supplementary reply online electronically through E-Proceeding on 05.11.2019 vide Acknowledgment No. 15111911989006 enclosing written reply, Vakalatnama of Mr. Rajeev Kumar Agrawal, Advocate, Statement of Bank A/c No. 30722183944 (State Bank of India, Khaga), Statement of Bank A/c No. 081401504446 (ICICI Bank, Khaga) (Copies are enclosed herewith for ready reference). Copy of e-acknowledgement along with annexures and e-acknowledgment receipt was manually submitted before the Learned assessing officer. The Learned assessing officer in assessment order did not mention the issue of notice dated 01.11.19 and compliances made by assessee appellant on 05.11.19 which shows the negligence of Learned assessing officer in performing his duties and wilfully passed an arbitrary order against the laws and facts. 4. That the hard Copies of all above said documents was also handed over to the Learned Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings by Assessee Appellant. 5. That the assessee appellant sold a land of 0.5260 hectare out of total purchased land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant on his arbitrary will. 7- That the said Land of Araji no. 537 was of 3.658 Hectares. Out of which the Assessee appellant purchased only 1.335 Hectare's on 21.10.1999 for Rs. 2,80,000,00 and the assessee appellant sold only .5260 Hectare's on 11.01.2017 for Rs. 5,00,000.00 only. It is evident from the Purchase and Sale deeds already placed on the assessment record (Both, Physical and electronic modes), after rectifying the measurement of the PURCHASED LAND 1.335 instead off 3.658 (wrongly mentioned in the Assessment order, ignoring the real fact and the evidence) the calculation comes as under: RECTIFIED CALCULATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS- (i) Sales Consideration - Rs. 5,00,000.00 (ii) Stamp Duty Valuation - Rs. 15,78,000.00 (iii) Cost of Acquisition- .5260x2,80,000/1.3350-Rs.1,10,332.00 (iv) Indexed Cost of Acquisition( 2001-02) =1,10332x426/389- Rs.1,20,815.00 (v) As per New calculation of Indexed Cost- 1,20.815x264/100= Rs. 3,18,953.00 (vi) LONG TERM CAPITALGAINS-5 00,000(-) 3,18,953= Rs. 1,81,047.00 8- That being the quasi-judicial Officer, the Learned Assessing officer erred to follow the rules of Nat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been judicially noted and approved in many judgments and has been relied upon in support of the Assessees claim. Hence your honour be pleased to allowed the appeal by quashing the addition or any other relief which may deem fit in the eye of Law facts be given to the appellant and oblige. 4b. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions partly, by holding as under: DECISION : 7.1 I have carefully considered the submissions, documentary evidences furnished by the appellant and the assessment order. 7.2 On perusal of the assessment order, it is observed that the appellant has purchased the land measuring 1.335 Hectares out of total land measuring 3.658 Hectares. The appellant has sold 0.5260 Hectares out of 1.335 Hectares for Rs. 5,00,000/- But the stamp duty valuation of the property was Rs. 15,78,000/-. Since the Stamp Duty valuation of property was more than the actual sale consideration, the Assessing Officer took the Stamp Duty valuation of the property for calculation of Long Term Capital gain and accordingly calculated the Long term capital gain. 7.3 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted the documentary evidences li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 50C. It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that matter can be set aside and restored to the file of the AO for denovo assessment . The Ld. Sr. DR fairly submitted that the matter can go back to AO for denovo assessment . 6. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have observed that the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 4,78,720/- , for the impugned assessment year. The case was selected by Revenue for framing limited scrutiny through CASS , and the reason for selection of the case for framing limited scrutiny assessment was to examine the capital gain/ loss on sale of property. It is observed that the assessee sold agriculture land for Rs. 5,00,000/- , but value adopted by government authorities for levy of stamp duty on transfer of said property was 15,78,000/-. The AO made additions by invoking provisions of Section 50C, and ld. CIT(A) partly confirmed the additions but as there was some calculation error, and the ld. CIT(A) directed AO to correct the said error. On his part, the assessee brought on record two comparative sale-deeds adjoining the area nearby in the vicinity to the land sold by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
