2019 (2) TMI 48

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d accordingly the assessment so framed by the AO in furtherance of such invalid assumption of jurisdiction by way of issue of notice under Section 143(2) is invalid and bad in law. 2. That without prejudice to ground no. 1 above, the valuation made by the Valuation Officer (VO) based on the Circle Rate adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority without properly looking into the other derogatory factors in respect of the immovable property, such as legal dispute going on in the Court, illegal possession by accused is arbitrary, unjust and consequently the Capital Gains as sustained, based on such arbitrary and unreasonable valuation of VO is also arbitrary, unreasonable and at any rate very excessive. 3. That without prejudice to ground no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Assessing Officer observed that in the capital gain section of the computation filed with the return was crossed by the assessee nor did the assessee show any capital gain or deduction u/s. 54 of the IT Act therein. In response to notice, the AR of the assessee filed a computation of long-term capital gains wherein he has taken full value of consideration at Rs. 37 lakhs, indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 7,49,323/- and computed the long term capital gains at Rs. 29,50,677/-, out of which the assessee claimed deducted u/s. 54 of Rs. 29,04,841/- and calculated the taxable long term capital gain of Rs. 45,836/- and paid tax thereon. This computation of capital gains submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer is placed at page....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng term capital gains after considering the sale consideration of property at Rs. 34,00,000/-. He, however, confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer regarding rejection of assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that the ld. authorities below were not justified in not considering the actual sale consideration of Rs. 16 lakhs, supported by sale deed and the documentary evidences pertaining to litigation on the said property, while relying on the valuation made by the AVO at Rs. 34 lakhs, particularly when the assessee had objected....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al gains at Rs. 29,50,677/- and after deducting Rs. 29,04,841/- u/s. 54, has admitted the taxable longterm capital gains at Rs. 45,836/- as noted above. In presence of these facts, there remains nothing to say on behalf of the assessee to considering the sale consideration of property at Rs. 16,00,000/- for further computing the capital gain of the said property, particularly when the request of assessee for referring the valuation to Valuation cell has been accepted by the ld. CIT(A) and the valuation of AVO at Rs. 34 lakhs has been accepted by him and the Assessing Officer has been directed accordingly. We, therefore, do not find any justification in the claim of assessee to consider the sale value of impugned property at Rs. 16 lakhs in ....