TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 944
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....These cases were heard together and the facts being common and issue similar, these cases are disposed of in this consolidated order. As a matter of convenience, we take up the facts as appearing in ITA No.375/LKW/2016. At the time of hearing also, the ld. A.R. of the assessee stated before us that so far as merit is concerned, all the three cases are same. 3. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee is HUF. Return was filed showing income of Rs. 563850/-. This income included Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 402451/- on sale of 1/3 share of part of property No 107/3 B, Dwarikapuri, Kanpur. The properties under reference is very old and there are various tenants with whom litigation are going on for property recovery as covered by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urn of Income on 31.03.2009 declaring net income of Rs. 563850/- which included Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 402451/- (Rs. 412801/- on sale of 1/3 share in immovable Assets (-) Rs. 10350/- set off of loss of A. Y. 2002-03). I. That although there was- no escapement of any income, the Learned AO on the ground that the Capital Gain has not been shown as per provisions of Section 50C on the Sale of immovable^ assets wrongly initiated the proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act on 27.03.2012. 3. That the properties under reference is part of a big Ahata bearing Municipal No 107/3, Dwarikapuri, Kanpur jointly owned by:- (i)Atul Kumar Garg, HUF (appellant) 1/3rd share. (ii) Rakesh Kumar Garg, HUF Co-owner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2013 of the approved valuer Shri A.S. Agarwal, Relevant portion of the report is reproduced :- 1. The premises was governed by rent control and eviction Act. The owners could neither increase the rent nor could get the premises evicted except as per the provision of rent control Act. There were three litigation going on in th-e court since 1994 & 1995 for getting the premises vacated but so far the owners were not able to get the premises vacated. The detail of the court cases are given below Case no Court Parties 110/94 II Addl. Munsif Rakesh Kumar Vs Har Charan Singh 283/95 JSCCII Rakesh Kumar Vs Har Charan Singh 69/02 JSCC Rakesh Kumar Vs Sant Prakash 2. The premises is facing G.T. R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....60/1221 Bhavan/04-05 dated 16.11.06 issued by Assistant Engineer (Bhavan) KDA to Shri Pawan Garg. Present residential land rate for the area is Rs. 11000.00 m2 Value of land = 268.05 m2 @ Rs. 11000.00 per m2 = Rs. 2948550.00 The structure in the premises is 60 years old and is in bad shape. The depreciated value of the same may be taken =Rs.300000.00 Total Rs. 324855.00 Since the entire premises is in occupancy of 3 tenants (-) = Rs.1072021.00 at a very small rental value. And the Net Value - Rs. 2176529.00 tenants cannot be evicted as per rent Say = Rs. 2177000.0'O control Act as such 33% deduction in value be allowed due to tenancy.(Rs. Twenty One Lac Seventy Seven Thousand . From ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en considered while calculating FMV. 3. Further, the assessee was given opportunity to raise his objection on FMV of Rs. 3,26,200/- vide this office letter no.24&25/AVO/ITD/KNP/12-13/403 dated: 13.03.2013 (copy attached). They have reiterated that the objections are without basis and the same were duly considered. They have advised that the valuation arrived by them is in order and no further relief is allowable." 6. The ld. CIT(A), on the basis of the submissions of the assessee and the DVO's report, held as follows:- "The proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 was valid as there was clear-cut escapement of any income. A.O. initiated the proceedings based on fresh information available on record as well after due a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e so it is proved since court cases are going on against them as per Rent Control Act, which is also evident in the order of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has stated that valuation by the DVO is correct whereas that adopted by the authorized valuer is arbitrarily done. However, we do not find any evidence or any material on record, which highlight these facts. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is not at all a speaking order and written submissions put forth by the assessee before him pointing out main three objections are not at all dealt with by the ld. CIT(A) in his order. We also examined DVO's report and we find that he has also not dealt with the issue as to why benefit should not be given to the assessee when KDA itself takes away some por....