TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 41
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral-I, Chennai (herein after referred to as CIT(A)) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not considering the fact that the proceedings initiated by the assessing officer u/s.147 of the IT Act are without jurisdiction, void, not based on evidences and are non-est in law. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessing officer has reopened the assessment u/s.147 in the absence of "new material". 4. The Ld.CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessing officer has erred by not issuing the reasons for believing that the income has escaped assessment. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessing officer has erred by not disposing the objection raised by the assessee by way of speaking order. 6. The Ld.CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the sales consideration received by the appellant for the sale of property is Rs. 45,00,000/ - only. 7. The Ld.CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the property in question has some inherent difficulties due to which it could not fetch the actual market price. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he actual market price. 8. The Ld.CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of assessing officer in invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act. 9. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the AO erred in not following the procedure laid down for invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act. 10. The assessee may add, alter or modify any other point to the Grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal". Grounds in ITA No. 1680/CHNY/2014 "1. The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Central-I, Chennai (herein after referred to as CIT(A)) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the sales consideration received by the appellant for the sale of property is Rs. 16,30,42,400/-. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the property in question has some inherent difficulties due to which it could not fetch the actual market price. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of assessing officer in invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) ought t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he hands of the assessee. Further the AO also noted that the assessee had taken the sale consideration at Rs. 66,61,31,550/- for 181,644 Sq. Ft; however under section 50C Guidance Rates, sale value for the area worked out to Rs. 68,38,89,660/-. The difference of Rs. 177,38,110/- was added in the hands of the assessee. 14. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO in so far as applicability of provisions of section 50C of the Act were to be applied. With regard to the next issue of indexation of cost of acquisition from 01.04.1981, wherein the AO allowed the same from financial year 2001-02, on the ground that the assessee had inherited the property in that year; the CIT(A) took note of provisions of section 49(1) of the Act and held that since the property was received by way of inheritance from the parents, the cost at which assessee's parents acquired property would be a cost in the hands of the assessee for the purposes of determining long term capital gains. Coming to the second aspect of indexed cost of acquisition, reference was made to the explanation (iii) under section 48 of the Act and it was held that the indexation had to be allowed from the date of incurring the expendi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les Corporation vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune in ITA No. 1474/Pun/2016 relating to A.Y. 2011-12, order dated 16.11.2018. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in Assistant ACIT vs. Smt. S. Suvarna Rekaha in ITA No. 743/Hyd/2009 relating to Assessment Year 2006-07, order dated 29th October, 2010 and other decisions. 17. The second aspect which he pointed out was that MOU was signed in 2002 and rates of land agreed to be sold were adopted at Rs. 2000/- per sq. ft; however the rates were revised thereafter and the AO has adopted revised rate of Rs. 2061 per sq. ft., as the GLR rate u/s 50C of the Act. In this regard, reliance was placed on various decisions but he emphasized on bunch of appeals with lead order in the case of Sri. Mohd Imran Beg vs. ITO in ITA No. 1942/Hyd/2014 relating to Assessment Year 2006-07, order dated 27.11.2015. He emphasized that when the agreement was entered into between the parties on anterior date, then the said date is to be taken for adopting the rate of land sold by the assessee. 18. The learned DR for the Revenue on the other hand relying on the orders of the authorities below, said that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the income, the assessee had declared the sale value at Rs. 66.61 Crs however the AO adopted the same at Rs. 68.38 Crs i.e. the 50C guidance land value for the area. The long term capital gains were computed by adding the difference of Rs. 1.78 Crore (Approx). 21. The first issue which is raised before us is that where the difference between the declared value and 50C guidance value was about 2.6%, can the same be adopted for computing the income from long term capital gains. Similarly in the succeeding year i.e. 2009-10, the difference in the value shown by the assessee and 50C guidance value adopted by the AO, was 0.89%. The MOU between the parties as referred in the para above was entered on 20.09.2002 and the rate declared by the assessee as sale consideration was above 50C guidance value at the relevant time. The rates were revised in 2003, which difference in the value was adopted by the AO on the ground that Development agreement was entered into on 12.01.2004. In this regard, we have referred to SR rate as notified by the Tamil Nadu Government for Arcot Road, Saligramam, which initially was Rs. 1861/- per sq. ft. and was revised to Rs. 2061/- per sq. ft. The assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al nos. 6 to 9 raised by the assessee in assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are allowed. 24. Now coming to the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 1138/CHNY/2014. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the Law and facts of the case. 2. The ld CIT(A) erred in holding that the cost of inflation index of the year of acquisition of the asset by the previous owner has to be applied and not the year of inheritance by the assessee as adopted by the Assessing Officer. 3. The ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that Explanation (iii) to Sec 48 only refers to the "First year in which the asset was held by the assessee" and does not use the word "previous owner". If the intention of the legislature is to extend the benefit of indexation also, then Explanation (iii) to Sec 48 would have been worded appropriately. 4. The ld CIT(A) failed to place reliance on the following decision wherein it has been stated that where the provisions of the statute are plain and unambiguous, the same should be interpreted literally and strictly and nothing more should be re....