TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 492
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Shri S,.M. Surana, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri Sallong Yaden, Ld. Departmental Representative represented on behalf of Revenue. 2. In this appeal various grounds have been raised out of which grounds No.1, 5 & 6 are general in nature and do not require separate adjudication. 3. First issue raised by assessee in this appeal in ground No. 2 is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the value declared for the purpose of stamp duty as the sale consideration for the calculation of capital gain u/s 50C of the Act. 4. At the outset, it was observed that Ld. AR has not advanced any argument in support of the above ground of appeal. Thus in view of above, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 5. Next issue raised by assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the total consideration for all the properties are arising out for Rs. 18,99,500/- and out of which a sum of Rs. 18 lakh was invested in security as specified u/s. 54EC of the Act for the purpose of exemption. Accordingly, there was no scope for making further investment of the deemed consideration for claiming the exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act. As per the provision of Sec. 54EC of the Act the assessee requires to make investment of the actual sale consideration in the specified long term asset. As such, there was no provision for making the investment of the deemed sale consideration as specified u/s. 50C of the Act. The AO in support of assessee's claim relied on the order of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Benche....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ward No.20, Dist. 24- Pgs., North, P.S. Habra Rs.16,64,640/- Rs.35,76,180/- The decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mrs. Nila Shah Vs. CIT (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The Hon'ble ITAT has held that for working of thee Long Term Capital Gain the sale consideration would be as per the value determined u/s. 50C. In view of the above, the AO is directed to compute the Long Term Capital Gain u/s. 50C after adopting the Fair Market Value as determined by the Valuation Office of the Income-tax Department and allow the claim of deduction u/s. 54EC on actual, sale value. These grounds of appeal are partly allowed." Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on the basis of actual sale consideration and not on the basis of deeming amount of consideration as envisaged in section 50C of the Act. Whereas the provision of Sec. 50C of the Act provides for deemed value of consideration adopted as per the Stamp Valuation Authority for the purpose of capital gain. In the instant case the impugned property was sold at a value lesser than the value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty. Therefore the valuation determined for the purpose of stamp valuation is taken as sale consideration. However, such deeming provision cannot be applied to the provision of law as specified Section 54EC of the Act. Accordingly, the deduction u/s 54EC of the Act in the instant case shall be limited to the amount of Rs. 18....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... partitioned dated 15.07.1985 and thus he became the owner of the impugned property on that date. The AO also observed that assessee has given the value of the property as per partition deed at Rs. 20,000/- in respect of four impugned properties as discussed above. Firstly, the AO disregarded the basis adopted by the assessee for the purpose of indexation of the cost of the property sold in the year under consideration. Secondly, the valuation declared on the partition date of all the four properties as discussed above was at Rs. 20,000/- only. Out of which one property was sold in the immediate preceding year and remaining three properties were sold in the year under consideration. Thus, AO has taken the cost of acquisition of three proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee reiterated the submissions as were made before the Ld. CIT(A). Besides the above the Ld. AR submitted that the valuation report in respect of impugned property by the registered valuer was filed before the Authorities Below but none of them has considered the same while deciding the instant issue. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the order of Authorities Below. 14. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the materials available on record as well as order of Authorities Below. The limited issue in this ground of appeal is confined to the following points:- (i) Whether cost of acquisition in respect of the impugned property sold should be taken at Rs. 20,000/- only as recorded in the par....