AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 830
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a partner in a partnership firm M/s. Narsing Chunder Daw & Co. 9, Dalhousie Square (East) ( now Known as B.B.D. Bag) Kolkata -700001. PAN: ADQPD1847F who runs the business of trading of guns. During the Assessment Year 2012-13 (relating to the Previous year 2011-12) the assessee filed Income Tax Return electronically in ITR Form NO -3 slowing income under the heads (a) Income from House Property (b) Income from Business (c) Capital Gain and (d) Income from Other Sources. Scrutiny Assessment was selected through CASS. The assessee was the owner of 1/4th share in an ancestral joint family property comprising of land and building situated at 152,153,154, & 155, Maniktala Main Road, Kolkata -....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deration : Rs. 3,25,18,401/- Deduction u/s. 48: : 1. Cost of acquisition after indexation : Rs. 3,23,13,460/- Balance : Rs. 2,04,941/- Deduction u/s. 54/54B/54D/54EC/54F/54GA : Nil Net Balance : Rs. 2,04,941/- 5. Cost of acquisition and indexation thereon adopted by the assessee on the basis of a valuation report of the property as on 01.04.81 which was valued at Rs. 1,64,65,457/-. The copy of valuation report filed shows the date of valuation as 14.02.13. Thus as stated above, Rs. 2,04,941/- was offered by the assessee as Long Term Capital Gain in the return of income. However, AO had a difference of opinion in respect to the valuation of the property as adopted by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x parte order confirming the AO's action. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 8. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order. We note that assessee was the owner of 1/4th share in an ancestral joint family property comprising of land and building situated at 152,153,154, & 155, Maniktala Main Road, Kolkata -700054 which was totally sold out by a Registered Deed dated 14.10.2011 at a consideration of Rs. 2,50,00,000 .and accordingly the assessee got share of sales money of 1/4th of total sales consideration of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- i.e Rs. 62,50,000/- . It was brought to our notice the fact that the property when sold was i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered the value of consideration being 1/4th of the stamp duty value of Rs. 13,00,73,603/- or Rs. 3,25,18,401/- in view of section 50C of the Act, the LTCG computed on the basis of the valuation report of the valuation of the property since inherited as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 41,16,364.25 (without indexation) as per valuer's report was brought down to Rs. 28,83,536/- by the DVO without the DVO acceding to the request of the assessee to value the fair market value on the date of sale which action, according to assessee, is against justice and fair play. We note that the AO as well as the DVO rejected the plea of the assessee to value the fair market value of the property on the date of sale on the ground that since the assessee itself has adopt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank Vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal 1980(Supp) SCC 420. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. CH. Atchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC) has held ) has held that the income should be assessed on the right person, right year and it should be on the right income. 10. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in S. R. Costhi Vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (SC) held, inter alia, "the authorities under the Income-tax Act, 1961 are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed, is overassessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... because he had nothing to do in the matter. Stamp duty was payable by the purchaser. It was for the purchaser to either accept it or dispute it. The assessee could not, on the basis of the price fixed by the Sub-Registrar, have claimed anything more than the agreed consideration of a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs which, according to the assessee, was the highest prevailing market price. It would follow automatically that his case was that the fair market value of the property could not be Rs. 35 lakhs as assessed by the District Sub Registrar. In a case of this nature the assessing officer should, in fairness, have given an option to the assessee to have the valuation made by the departmental valuation officer contemplated under Section 50C. As a ma....