TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in this particular case is this as to whether the ld.CIT(A) has made an error in directing the Assessing Officer (AO), to compute the capital gains as per valuation of stamp duty as of November 2010 when the sale agreement of agricultural land was executed between the parties instead of the rate prevailing at the time of registration of the sale deed on 21.06.2011 on the present facts and circumstances of the case. Further that as to whether the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s.54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the basis of materials available. 3. The facts of the case is this that the assessee sold two immovable properties during the year under consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber 2010 or total consideration received/receivable by the assessee whichever is higher, against which the Revenue has come up in appeal before us. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Ld. Tribunal on the same issue in the matter of Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. DCIT in ITA No.1237/Ahd/2013 for the AY 2008-09. 5.1. On the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Revenue relied upon the order passed by the Ld. AO. 6. We have heard the Representatives of the respective parties. We have perused the relevant materials available on record. It appears from the records that the assessee sold two properties both were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the property on that date has to be taken into consideration in terms of section 50C of the Act and not the valuation prevailing on the date of agreement of sale. He then calculated the capital gain of Rs. 84,41,755/- being undisclosed income of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 6.1. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) while dealing with the matter considered the following new/proviso inserted to the provisions of section 50C by the Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 01.04.2017: "Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital - assets are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in order to avoid genuine hardships of the taxpayers and followed the retrospective effect of the provision from the date of introduction of sec.50C i.e. 01.04.2003 instead of insertion of provision from 01.04.2017. On this premise, the Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding that the valuation of stamp duty is required to be calculated on the rate prevailing in November-2010 since the appellant received the total consideration by way of cheque payment in Nov-2010. 6.2. The observation made by the Co-ordinate bench in that matter is as follows: "The proviso to s. 50C inserted by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to provide that the stamp duty valuation of property on the date of execution of the agreement to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act and to allow the same provided the assessee satisfies all the criterion in terms of the said section against which Revenue has come up in appeal before us. 8. The facts is this that the assessee has also purchased two agricultural plot of land on 25.10.2011 and 07.02.2013 for the total consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 1,44,000/- respectively; payments were made partly by cheques and partly by cash. The deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.54B of the Act was negated by the AO on the premise that the said claim for exemption was not filed by the assessee in the original return of income. In fact, the assessee has not filed any return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. During the course hearing of the matter, the Ld. Representati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....012. The payment of Rs. 1,44,000/- made by the assessee on 07.02.2013 is beyond two years' time as prescribed under the Statute. The AO further observed that the date of filing of return of income of the assessee was on 31.07.2011. According to him, if the money had not been invested by the assessee by that time, then the same should have been deposited in any designated bank account but no evidence whatsoever was produced before the AO by the assessee, neither the copy of the purchase deed nor evidence of such purchase of agricultural land. 10. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) opined that the said claim of the assessee though has not been in the original return of income, the same cannot be denied if the assessee is entitled for the same. He thu....