AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1005
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n response, the assessee filed her return of income on 12/03/2015 by declaring long term capital gain of Rs. 10,67,130/-. Subsequently, the case was converted into scrutiny and a notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 13/08/2014. 2.1 In response to the notice u/s 143(2), the AR of the assessee stated that the value of SRO cannot be acceptable for the reason that during the time of execution of purchase deed of the same property on 29/06/2006, the FMV was Rs. 75,45,000/- and the said FMV as on the date of sale of property on 21/08/2006 was Rs. 1,88,70,000/- and the state govt. has increased the value of the property abnormally to obtain revenue, but, land value cannot be doubled in two months time, hence requested for valuation of the property by the DVO u/s 50C(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the DVO determined the value of the property at Rs. 1,14,48,000/-. 2.2 During the year, assessee has invested the capital gains in purchase of a flat at Khajaguda from M/s Vasundhara Realtors (P) Ltd. Before the AO, the assessee submitted the receipts for Rs. 45 lakhs and bank statement. The assessee also submitted that the construction of the flat has got delayed by the builder and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,92,375/- without appreciating the fact that even when the sale consideration is adopted at Rs. 1,14,48,000/- by applying the provisions of Sec.50C of the I.T. Act. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that for the purpose of deduction u/s 54F, the amount is to be reckoned as Rs. 75 lakhs as against Rs. 83,80,539/- worked out by the appellant. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the ground once decided in the appellate order cannot be modified by passing a Corrigendum. 9. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the proportion to be adopted shall be the amount spent for acquisition of the property in relation to the actual sale consideration of Rs. 75 lakhs and not the deemed consideration worked out based on the provisions of Sec.50C of the I.T. Act. 10. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the charging of interest u/s 234A and 234C of the I.T Act." 5. Ground Nos. 1 & 11 are general in nature, hence, need no adjudication. Ground No. 2 was not argued by the assessee, therefore, this ground is dismissed as n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s per the deemed provisions of section 50C. The submissions of the assessee cannot be accepted on the fact that assessee is an NRI and was not in a position to negotiate or the market value cannot be fluctuated with a span of 4 months. The AO has to follow the provisions laid down in section 50C and he also has followed the due process of law by referring the matter to the valuation cell and, accordingly, he has adopted the value as determined by the DVO. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of ld. CIT(A) and upholding the order of CIT(A), we dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard. 9. With regard to ground No. 6, 7 & 9, relating to exemption u/s 54F, ld. AR submitted that assessee invested the sale consideration in purchasing a plot at Khajaguda from M/s Vasundhara Realtors (P) Ltd. before March'07. Accordingly, assessee claimed the exemption of Rs. 50,92,375/- considering the capital gains arrived at Rs. 75 lakhs. The assessee has arrived at the exemption u/s 54F as under: Rs. 61,23,555 /75,00,000 x 62,37,033 = Rs. 50,92,375. He submitted that in the above calculation, assessee arrived Rs. 61,23,555/- as capital gain ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee can claim to the extent of actual investment made by the assessee or to the extent of money deposited in capital gains scheme. Assessee has to submit before the AO proof of making actual investment and deposits in bank under the scheme. In the given case, assessee himself acknowledges that he has made investment to the extent of Rs. 62,37,033/-. Therefore, the above case of Raj Babbar (supra) cannot be applied. 11.2 With regard to case law, relied upon by the ld. DR in the case of Shri Gouli Mahadevappa (supra), the ITAT Bangalore Bench has observed as under: "8.21 The main ingredients of the statute to be dealt with to compute the exemption allowable under these sections are, (1) the "capital gain" arising from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, (2) net consideration in respect of the original asset, (3) extent of the net consideration invested in the new asset. The "capital gains" and the "net consideration" have to be worked out within the framework of s. 54F of the Act, without imposing any fiction created by any other section. Thus, the capital gains arising from the transfer of any long-term capital asset for the purpose of s. 54F has to be worked ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passing corrigendum. Therefore, it is not necessary to give opportunity to the assessee before passing such order. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 15. With regard to ground No. 10, ld. AR submitted that assessee is an NRI, whenever payment is made to NRI, payee should deduct tax at source in accordance with the provisions of section 195 of the Act. During this year, the assessee does not have any other income, therefore, the capital gain determined is subject to deduction of tax at source by payee as per the provisions of section contained in section 209, tax is to be adjusted in accordance with the proviso in section 209. As per the proviso, tax deductible at source has to be reduced for the purpose of making advance tax payable. He, therefore, submitted that AO cannot invoke interest u/s 234C of the Act. He relied on the following cases: 1. M/s Prysmian Cavi e Systemi Telecom SPA, 46 Taxmann.com 216 (Hyd. Trib.) [2014] 16. Ld. DR relied on the order of ld. CIT(A). 17. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. No doubt, assessee is NRI and remittance to the assessee comes under the provisions of section 195. Deduction of tax whil....