TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1092
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that once the Assessing Officer adopted the same value as that of DVO for working out capital gains tax, no further objections can be entertained on this issue, ignoring the Judicial pronouncements under similar / identical circumstances, which are in favour of the Appellant. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals) has erred in not at all considering the additional grounds submitted by the Appellant before deciding the case ; he has simply mentioned the additional grounds and the Judicial pronouncements quoted by the Appellant without any discussion on the same. 4. The learned Commissioner o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m Village, Trichy and received sale consideration A15,67,125/- as against market value/guideline value of stamp duty A33,22,305/-. The ld. Assessing Officer on request of the assessee referred the property to Valuation Officer and the DVO has determined market value of the property at A24,45,000/- u/s.16A(5) of the Wealth Tax Act r.w.s. 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer determined capital gains based on the DVO value and worked out Long Term Capital Gains of A7,21,294/- whereas the assessee has entered into agreement for residential flat with two others in Bangalore on 06.11.2009 but sale deed was registered on 29.03.2010 for a consideration of A51,95,926/- and the assessee's share in the investment being A17,31,975/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the judicial decisions but the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found that the assessee has requested for valuation by DVO were the DVO has fixed the value at A24,45,000/-. The ld. Assessing Officer have adopted the valuation but the assessee was prevented from filing the objections on the value. But, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order, the assessee assailed an appeal before Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld. Authorised Representative of assessee argued the grounds and reiterated the submissions made in the assessment and appellate proceedings and contention of the ld. Authorised Representative that the vacant land sold ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and prayed for allowing the appeal. 6. Contra, the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of Assessing authority and opposed the grounds. 7. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and judicial decision. The only crux of the disputed issue argued by the ld. Authorised Representative that the assessee has invested entire net sale consideration in the construction of house property alongwith two others at Bangalore which is not disputed and complied the stipulated conditions of provisions of Sec. 54F of the Act that within three years from the date of transfer of original Asset i.e. 3rd December, 2007 and assessee should construct and take possession of the residential property on or before 3rd December....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bench decision in the case of Shivkumar Lakshman vs. ITO in ITA No.402/Mds/2015, dated 29.05.2015 were it was held at para 9, page 6 as under:- ''9. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. The question arises for consideration is that for the purpose of granting deduction under Section 54F of the Act, whether the sale consideration disclosed in the sale deed has to be taken or the value adopted by the SubRegistrar for registering the document has to be taken. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that for the purpose of granting deduction under Section 54F of the Act, the value disclosed in the sale deed has to be adopted rather than the value determined by the Sub-Registrar....