9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year 2015-16. The revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the A.O at Rs. 12,99,500/- invoking the provision of section 50C of the I.T Act? 2. Any other ground which may be adduced at the time of hearing." 2. Succinctly stated the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y.2015-16 on 22.08.2015, declaring an income of Rs. 82,84,786/-. Original assessment was framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 11.12.2017 determining the assessee's total income at Rs. 82,84,786/-. 3. After culmination of the assessment proceedings, it was observed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for computing the amount of LTCG in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) on the basis of his aforesaid observations partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as under: "6.1.1 I find that the AO did not pass the order u/s 154 haste since the period between two notices dated 19.06.2010 and 23.08.2021 were more than one year apart. Further, the issues raised u/s 154 were having merits and unless special circumstances (prior agreement of sale) existed and pointed out, no error in order u/s 154 passed by the AO can be stated. However, the additional evidence were admitted in the interest of natural justice and in view of the claim that intermitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014, therefore, FMV of the agricultural land sold by him was to be determined on the basis of guidelines rate notified for financial year 2013-14 and not those pertaining to financial year 2014-15 i.e. the year in which registered sale deed was executed by him. 9. Shorn of unnecessary details, the assessee had sold agricultural land situated at Iskcon, Raipur for a consideration of Rs. 66 lacs. On a perusal of the "agreement to sell" dated 06.03.2014, Page 15 of APB, it transpires that the assessee had received part of the sale consideration of Rs. 20 lacs vide cheque No.041586 drawn on Union Bank of India, Raipur dated 06.03.2014. Also, as is discernible from the copy of sale deed dated 05.04.2014, the balance amount of sale consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarity, the "1st proviso" to Section 50C(1) is culled out as under: "Provided that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of computing full value of consideration for such transfer". Ostensibly, as neither the "agreement to sell" dated 06.03.2014; nor the contents thereof had been doubted by the A.O in the course of the remand proceedings, therefore, as observed by the CIT(Appeals), and rightly so, the value assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of the "agreement to sell" i.e. 06.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
