TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (2) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r hearing counsel for the parties, we frame the following substantial question of law:- "Whether Income Tax Tribunal is right in holding that the Assessing Officer could have re-examined and re-computed the value of the sale consideration received by the appellant/assessee for transfer of property bearing Plot no. S-40, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Phase/Site No. 4, Ghaziabad?" 3. With the consent of the parties, we have heard the arguments and proceed to decide the appeal. 4. There have been several rounds of litigation and therefore, it is appropriate to state the facts in some detail. The assessee had sold the aforesaid property consisting of land and factory building for Rs. 17.50 lakhs during the assessment period 1994-95. As provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....44/- under Section 41(1) in respect of depreciable assets which were sold. The Assessing Officer bifurcated the sale consideration of Rs. 17,50,000/-. Rs. 15,00,000/- was allocated as sale consideration received for land and Rs. 2,50,000/- was treated as the sale consideration received for the factory building which was a depreciable asset. The appellant/assessee had taken and computed the sale consideration of the land and building as Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.12.50 lakhs, respectively. 9. The CIT (Appeals) vide order dated 3rd December, 2001, upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and did not interfere with the same. 10. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 24th February, 2006, the Tribunal after exam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... capital gain on the basis that the sale consideration received by the assessee was Rs. 21,42,502/- and not Rs. 17,50,000/-. 12. The Assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) who upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer enhancing the sale consideration from Rs. 17,50,000/- to Rs. 21,42,502/- on the basis of the valuation report given by the Departmental Valuation Officer. The impugned order confirms the said addition and the appeal of the appellant/assessee has been dismissed. 13. We have reproduced and perused the operative portion of the order dated 24th February, 2006 passed by the Tribunal i.e. para 3.2. On reading of the said operative portion, it is apparent that the question of bifurcation and apportionment o....