TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s.55(2) (b) at Rs. 20/- sq.ft. instead of Rs. 0.06/- sq. ft. taken by the AO disregarding the Government Rate guidelines supplied by the Registrar at the Collectorate. 2. "Whether in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of Rs. 65,776/- u/s.50 of the I.T. Act, 1961 when there was no construction on the said land." 3. "Whether in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the AO on account of brokerage/commission paid for sale of land." 4. "Whether in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction of Rs. 32,47,100/- not claimed by the assessee in its return of income u/s.54B of the I.T Act, 1961. 5. "The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both in law and on facts" 6. "Any other ground that may be adduced at the time of hearing" 3.1 In ITA No.52/BLPR/2012, the assessee has raised the similar ground as raised by the Revenue in first ground of ITA No.56/BLPR/2012 and the same is as under: "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in directing the AO to ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the land at Rs. 50/- per sq.ft. determined by the Registered Valuer. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) as per reasons appearing in his order estimated the fair market value of the land with average annual growth rate of 25% at that particular point of time and thus, determined the value @Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. Here also, the Ld. CIT(A) did not make any reference to the DVO. 8. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the findings of the Assessing Officer determining the fair market value @ Rs. 0.60/- per sq.ft.. However, the Ld. DR could not controvert the fact that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Ld. CIT(A) had referred the matter for determination of the fair market value before the DVO. The Ld. DR could not explain the basis of estimation of the fair market value adopted by the Assessing Officer neither he could explain the rational of the decision taken by the Ld. CIT(A) though the Authorities are not technically competent to determine the fair market value of the land and for which purpose, specifically Departmental valuer is there. 9. The Ld. AR opposed the estimation adopted by the Assessing Officer i.e. Rs. 0.60/- per sq.ft and also opposed the estimation determined by the Ld. CIT(A) @Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... determination of the fair market value of the land. In absence of the DVO's report, the rejection by the Revenue Authorities of the registered valuer's report submitted by the assessee is not justifiable, rather, arbitrary, un-judicious, such action is required to be discarded. 13. In view of the examination of facts and legal parameters, enshrined in the judgments referred hereinabove, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to take fair market value @Rs. 50/- per square feet as provided in the registered valuer's report submitted by the assessee. Thus, ground No.1 raised in appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. 14. We have dismissed ground No.1 of the Revenue's appeal and ground No.1 raised by the assessee in his appeal in ITA No.52/BLPR/2012 is allowed. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.52/BLPR/2012 is allowed. 16. Now, we adjudicate the ground No.2 of the Revenue's appeal which pertains to "allowing deduction of Rs. 65,776/- u/s.50 of the Act when there was no construction on the said land." 17. The Ld. CIT(A) on this issue has held and observed as follows: "5.3 I have carefully gone through the assessment order and subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s entitled for deduction on account of cost of construction of poultry farm building etc. However, as the appellant had claimed depreciation, the appellant is entitled for deduction of written down value of building etc. as on 31.03.2008 in view of the provisions of section 50 of the Act which contains special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets. Thus, the appellant is entitled for deduction of Rs. 65,776/- (Rs. 60889 +Rs. 4887/-) being written down value of poultry farming building and cages etc. Thus, the deduction claimed by the appellant on account of indexed cost of construction by taking fair market value of cost of construction at Rs. 80/- per Sq. Ft. cannot be accepted. Therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed. The AO is directed to allow deduction of Rs. 65,776/- in view of the provisions of section 50." 18. We have perused the case records and analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case. We have also given considerable thought to the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. The facts of the case demonsrates that the assessee is engaged in the business of poultry Farming since 1997. The survey operation u/s.133A was conducte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot submitted by the assessee. That however, before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had provided complete names, address and PAN of the brokers to whom brokerage/commission was paid by the assessee. It is the grievance of the Revenue that the Ld. CIT(A) allowed this amount and deleted the disallowance by accepting the evidences furnished before him regarding genuineness of the transactions and the brokerage paid but these evidences were not placed before the Assessing Officer for his comments. 21. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions on this issue. We find that regarding payment of brokerage, no details were furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. That however, before the Ld. CIT(A) as the facts on record demonstrates all the necessary and relevant details regarding payment of brokerage were furnished before the First Appellate Authority. The only grievance of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee relying on all these evidences but these evidences were not confronted before the Assessing Officer for his comments. We find that the premise of the Revenue's contention arises from Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e proceeds of agricultural lands in the return of income filed by the assessee. The assessee did not claim any such exemption even before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. This claim was for the first time claimed before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after obtaining comments of the Assessing Officer and in view of natural justice, this issue was admitted and decided on merits by the Ld. CIT(A). 26. The Ld. CIT(A) as per reasons appearing in his order which is on record allowed exemption u/s.54B of the Act to the assessee in respect of sum of Rs. 32,47,100/- reinvested in purchase of agricultural lands out of the sale proceeds of the agricultural land. 27. At the time of hearing, the Ld. DR submitted that this claim of deduction was neither filed in the return of income by the assessee nor was claimed at any point of time during the assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) therefore could not have granted exemption u/s.54B of the Act to the assessee even if the assessee is claiming such exemption. 28. The Ld. AR of the assessee at the time of hearing brought to our notice the decision of the Raipur Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.30/RPR/2014 in the....