TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s. 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (the Act) and the consequent re-assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. b) It is the humble prayer of the appellant that the re-assessment proceedings are wrong, without jurisdiction and bad-in-law ab initio. Ld. C1T (A) has erred in upholding the same. 2) a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Id. C1T (A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 24,48,400/-, being the deemed sales consideration u/s. 50C of the Act. as Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) without granting deduction of indexed cost of acquisition there from in accordance with the provisions of the law. b) That the Id. CTT (A) has grossly erred in law in not granting de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 01.02.2011 had valued the said property at Rs. 6,12,10,000/- for stamp duty. However, assessee stated that the value of the stamp duty purpose was determined at Rs. 97,93,600/- by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation. Later on, it has been confirmed by the Collector of stamp duty. Therefore, the valuation adopted by the stamp duty authorities in respect of the land sold by the assessee was much higher than reflected in the sale deed. There was long term capital gain of Rs. 24,48,400/- on sale of this plot of land as being 25% of share of the assessee. The A.O. gave reasonable opportunity of being heard on this issue, which was afforded by the assessee. The appellant submitted before the A.O. that the Stamp Valuation Authority adopt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to the reasonable inference that the value of the asset is more than shown in the account books. 5. On account of the direct dependence of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on stamp valuation, it can not be argued that the valuation made by the Sub-Registrar is merely and only restricted for the purpose of Stamp duty. 6. It is apparent that the transfer has been effected with the object of avoidance or reduction of tax liability." Finally, he assessed the capital gain at Rs. 24,48,400/- and added in the income of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A). Before him, he also challenged the reopening made by the A.O. u/s. 148, which was dismissed by him ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e land. He also filed a copy of Valuation Report at page no.7 to 14 of paper book. Therefore, he requested to reopening u/s. 147 is bad in law. At the outset, ld. Sr. D.R. heavily relied upon the order of the CIT (A). 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In this case, processing of the case was made u/s. 143(1A) only and no scrutiny assessment was made by the A.O. The case was reopened u/s. 148 after recording the reasons within 4 years. The assessee had not disclosed long term capital gain in the computation of income even there was no long term capital gain on sale of land. The A.O. recorded the reasons as per law and issued notice u/s. 148. The ld. A.R. had not controverted the findings given by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evidence before the A.O. The assessee claimed that he got valuation as on 01.04.1981 from Government Approved Valuer at Rs. 20,80,000/- and claimed indexation before the A.O. but no evidences were submitted by the assessee before the A.O. Thus, he calculated long term capital gain without applying any indexation on cost as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 24,48,400/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who had confirmed the addition by observing that the appellant had failed to furnish the report of Government Approved Valuer before the A.O. to support the claim of index cost acquisition, but the assessee filed this report on 05.08.2005 in the office of CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) asked the asse....