TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 944
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 23, Dharm Park, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur in computing the value of the said property at Rs. 4,23,100 as against sold at Rs. 3.70 lac; and 3. upholding the charging of interest under ss. 234B at Rs. 32,364, 234D at Rs. 1,775 and 244A at Rs. 924. 2. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of orders of the lower authorities, material available on record and the decisions relied upon. Ground No. 1 3. The assessee sold office premises admeasuring 690.80 sq. ft. at No. 1, First Floor, Kamal Complex, New Colony, Jaipur to M/s Nand Leasing (P) Ltd,. for a sale consideration of Rs. 8 lacs. As per the terms of agreement entered in the month of May, 2002, the assessee received a cheque of Rs. 5 lacs on 11th May, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therwise it is not required. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that it is also strange that the lower authorities have taken the sale consideration at Rs. 13,05,880 i.e., the value as assessed by the Sub-Registrar being the District Level Screening Committee (DLC) (Government of Rajasthan) rates when the impugned asset was registered almost two years later i.e. on 10th March, 2004 because the assessee had already received the entire sale consideration by September, 2002, whereas the lower authorities have adopted the same rate, same amount as per the sale deed registered on 10th March, 2004. The lower authorities are fully unjustified in coming to the conclusion that the said value as in March, 2004 is to be adopted being fair....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the contention of the assessee that the agreement to sell the property was entered into on the date of first instalment of the amount in consideration i.e. 11th May, 2002 and handed over the possession of the property in question by the seller to the assessee (sic) on the payment of entire consideration on 4th Sept., 2002 has not been accepted by the lower authorities in absence of a written agreement on those dates. With the above contentions, the assessee intended to make a case that sale was completed well before coming into operation of the provisions of s. 50C of the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 2003, hence the provisions of s. 50C of the Act are not applicable in the present case merely because the sale deed was registered two years later ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d over only after payment of the entire amount in consideration. The issue as to when the possession of the property was handed over to the assessee has arisen in the present case since in the written agreement dt. 29th March, 2003 it has not been mentioned in cl. (4) of the agreement as to when the possession of the property was handed over to (by) the assessee and only an inference has been drawn that since the date of written agreement is dt. 29th March, 2003, the possession of the property might have been handed over on the date of the agreement. In such a situation only circumstantial evidence may be helpful to arrive at a just conclusion about the correctness of the above claim of the learned Authorised Representative which is support....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount of Rs. 9 lacs on the plea that the Sub-Registrar (4), Jaipur had conveyed land rate of Rs. 3,000 per sq. mtr. On the objection of the assessee the AO referred the matter for valuation to the Asstt. Valuation Officer who adopted the value of land at Rs. 3,80,300 with cost of boundary wall at Rs. 48,000 totalling to Rs. 4,23,100. The AO invoked the provisions of s. 50C of the Act and made addition of Rs. 53,100 adopting the value of the impugned land with boundary wall at Rs. 4,23,100 as against the fair market value shown by the assessee at Rs. 3,70,000. The learned CIT(A) has upheld the action of the AO. 9. The contention of the learned Authorised Representative remained that the difference between the value of land estimated by th....