9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was dismissed. 02. In fact, at the time of filing of the appeal, the registry has raised an objection that this appeal is time barred by 350 days. The assessee has submitted an affidavit of Karta wherein it has been stated that the order of the learned CIT - A was passed on 28/4/2022, which was brought to the notice of assessee on 25 March 2023 causing the delay of 350 days. Assessee states that he is a senior citizen not familiar with the email and electronic communication and English-language. The email address was also created by other persons. Further, the e-filing portal of the assessee has to email addresses, which was operated by the professional consultant of the assessee who is filing the return of income. Thereafter, another ema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by letter and further the honourable Supreme Court in case of MSt katiji has clearly held that the appeal should be heard on merits of the case. Accordingly, appeal is admitted. 05. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 4,609,030/- on 31/3/2017. The case was selected under limited scrutiny for verification of value of consideration for computation of capital gain. It was found that assessee has sold a property at Kalyan Thane for an amount of Rs. 130 lakhs whereas the market value as per the stem duty authority is 1,61,57,000. Therefore, the assessee was asked to show why the difference between these two values should not be treated as income under section 50 C of the act. Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it applies retrospectively. 08. London departmental representative vehemently objected the same stating that for this assessment year there is no such provision available and therefore the lower authorities are correct in rejecting the claim of the assessee. Therefore, the addition has been correctly made. 09. We find that the impugned assessment year is 2016 - 17. Admittedly, assessee has sold a property at the transaction value of Rs. 130 lakhs. The valuation by the departmental valuer comes to Rs. 13,930,000/-. Therefore, the difference between the transaction value and the value of property as denied by the departmental valuation officer is Rs. 930,000. We find that the tolerance limit provided under section 50 C (1) was 5%, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
