9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 881X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inafter referred to as "the Act") dated 28.12.2017 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-43(3), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "ld. AO"). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Delhi has erred both in law and, on facts in upholding the determination of income made by the learned of Income Tax officer, Ward-43(3), Delhi of the appellant at Rs. 2,55,61,102/- as against declared income of Rs. 2,20,060/- by the appellant in an order of assessment dated 28.12.2017 u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Delhi has erred both in law and, on facts in upholding while computing the long term capital gain in adoptin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elled and, the original cheque of Rs. appellant also stood returned. issued by the 2.7 That further more the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has proceeded to confirm the addition on mere speculation, generalized statements, theoretical assumptions and allegations and assertions, without there being any supporting evidence and is therefore not in accordance with law. 2.8 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in recording various adverse inferences which are contrary to the facts on record, material placed on record and, are otherwise unsustainable in law and therefore, addition so sustained is absolutely unwarranted. 2.9 That no enquiries conducted by the income tax author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d AO observed that the assessee has claimed that the cost of acquisition of the land is unascertainable in view of the fact that land is ancestral land. The matter was referred to ld District Valuation Officer (DVO) u/s 55A of the Act for determining the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981. The report of the ld DVO was not received till the date of completion of assessment. However, reference was also made to ld DVO in the case of Manjeet Singh for arriving at the cost of acquisition of the land as on 01.04.1981 in respect of land situated at Chhawala Village as on 01.04.1981 wherein, the rate of Rs. 3,32,150/- per acre was determined. The assessee was show caused as to why the valuation adopted in the case of Manjeet Singh be not adopted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O to examine the claim of exemption u/s 54B and 54F of the Act and for redetermination cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981. The ld DR relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India reported in 284 ITR 323 stating that since no claim was made by the assessee in this regard in the return, the same cannot be granted to the assessee. 5. We hold that the determination of cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 based on the valuation report of ld DVO in the case of Manjeet Singh is not correct. The ld AO had indeed noted that the case was referred to ld DVO u/s 55A of the Act in the case of assessee itself for determination of cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981. The ld AO is directed to adopt the said valuation repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
