TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law and facts where the assessee has already made a full and true disclosure of all the relevant materials in the first instance when the original assessment was framed. Reasons for reopening fail to mention which material was failed to be disclosed by the assessee. It cannot be said that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all the material facts necessary for assessment. There is no finding of concealed income. The reopening is based on valuation adopted for payment of stamp duty by the sub- registrar. (No evidentiary value) 2. Reopening by invoking Section 50C:- (a)That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proceeding initiated u/s 148 of the income Tax Act,1961....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. Sale Price Vs. 50C: Under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A) Ist, Jaipur, has erred in taking full value of consideration of Rs. 24,86,065/- as against Rs. 12,00,000/- received by the assessee in computing the Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of home/shop at Gangapur City by applying the provisions of section 50C. 6. Proper deduction not allowed: Under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) Ist, Jaipur, has erred in taking the cost of construction in F.Y. 1984-85 at Rs. 36,560/-instead of Rs. 1,01,310/- and cost of construction in F.Y. 2002-03 at Rs. 70,265/- instead of Rs. 1,60,840/- on computing the indexed cost of improvement for the purpose of arriving at the amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he fair market value of the property at Rs. 20,59,400/-. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition by accepting the full value consideration as determined by the DVO. 2.2 Before us, the ld.AR of the assessee has submitted that the property in question comprises of shops at ground floor and residential house at first floor. The ld.AR of the assessee further submitted that only one small shop is facing the road side and other shops are at the back side of the property whereas the DVO has applied the DLC rate as applicable for commercial property. The ld.AR of the assessee further contended that even as per sale deed the facts regarding property occupied by various tenants and disputes between the assessee and the tenants ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 08-09-2016 - ITAT Jaipur Bench) 4. ITO vs Shiv Shakti Build Home (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 157/Jd/2009 dated 11-02-2011 - ITAT Jodhpur Bench) 5. Shri Manoj Dubey vs ITO (ITA No.294/JP/2016 dated 09-06-2017 - ITAT Jaipur Bench) 6. ACIT vs Royal Stiches Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 977/MDS/2009 dated 30-03-2010 - ITAT Chennai Bench) The ld.AR of the assessee further pointed out that prior to issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the AO issued notice on 29-08-2013 u/s 133 (6) of the Act to the assessee calling for information regarding the property in question and in response to the said notice the assessee vide its reply dated 26-09-2013 has specifically pointed out that the property in question was let out since the year 1995 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e property is reduced only to 15% by the reasons that the property is occupied by the tenants and dispute is pending in the Court. We further note that the sale deed itself manifests the status of the property in question and it is explained in the sale deed that without any ambiguity at the ground floor there are 05 shops and at first floor there is a residential house. All the 05 shops as well as residential house are occupied by the tenants at a rate of Rs. 1210/- per month and Rs. 2200/- per month respectively. Thus the entire rent of the property is only Rs. 3410/-. Considering the status of the property being occupied by the tenants and tenants have already approached the Court for getting the interim stay against dispossession fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s well cost of construction was denied by the AO and by the ld. CIT(A). 3.2 The assessee claimed cost of construction of Rs. 1,01,310/- in the financial year 1984-85 as well as cost of construction in the financial year 2002-03 at Rs. 1,60,840/-. The AO while computing the capital gains has adopted the cost of construction for the financial year 1984-85 at Rs. 35,560/- and for the financial year 2002-03 at Rs. 70,265/-. 3.3 The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 3.4 We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant materials available on record. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not filed any evidence to substantiate he....