TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 652
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5,850 sft while the evidence on record show that the area of the land transferred is 1,09,253 sft. 3. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of difference on the measurement of land transferred and the fair market value without giving the assessing officer an opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) has admitted additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 4. The CIT(A) erred in admitting fresh evidence with regard to the fair market value while determining it at Rs. 350 per sft without giving the A.O. an opportunity in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 5. The CIT(A) erred in adopting the fair market value at Rs. 350 per sft while the average rate prevailing in the area was Rs. 600 per sft. The CIT(A) erred in adopting the lowest rate of guidance value while the assessee has not made such plea either before the assessing officer or the CIT(A). 6. The CIT(A) erred in considering higher cost of acquisition in respect of the land received as gift while the value of the lands as per the gift deed should have been adopted for the purpose of computing indexed cost of acquisition of the lands transferred. 7. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as defined in sec 2(47) of I.T. Act has taken place on 27.08.2007 and hence, capital gain chargeable to tax has accrued to the appellant in A.Y 2008-09. In the written submissions, the AR of the appellant has also agreed that the capital gain on transfer of land has to be brought to tax in A.Y 2008-09. Thus, taxing of capital gains in A.Y 2008-09 as done by the AO and as agreed by the AR is confirmed in principle. 4.5 Now, the area of dispute is the quantification of sale consideration and computation of capital gains. The first aspect of this exercise is the area actually transferred by the appellant to BEL. AO has taken the area transferred in the assessment order at 1,09,253 Square feet. In the original joint development agreement (JDA) the area to be transferred was 1,65,000 Sq.Ft. This area included three schedules. In first two schedules the land area was of 63,600 sq.ft and 71,880 sq.ft respectively, was specified but the area in third schedule was not specified as the land was to be subsequently, allotted to the appellant by Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA). Thus approximately, the land was taken at 1,65,000 sq.ft, considering the land to be allotted by MUDA to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ysore South dated:-09.02.2016. The applicable rate of the land transferred by the appellant as per the said chart for industrial land used for residential purposes is Rs. 350/- per sq.foot. The AR of the appellant has submitted that the stamp duty valuation rate of Rs. 350/- per sq.foot be adopted for valuation of capital gains. I have gone through the said chart issued by the Senior Sub-Registrar, Mysore South and it is found that the applicable rate for A.Y 2008-09 for the land transferred is Rs. 350/- per sq.foot. AO is directed to apply the said rate for computation of capital gains. 4.7 Thus the capital gains on the basis of the above analysis and finding in the case of the appellant is as under: Sale consideration = Land transferred in sq.feet x Rate as per Stamp duty Authorities Rs. 3,70,47,780/- = 1,05,850.80sq.ft. Rs. 350/- 4.8 Now I come to the computation of Indexed cost of acquisition. The appellant had purchased and received as gift the entire stretch of land in four parts in different A.Ys. The AR of the appellant has filed a detailed computation of the Indexed cost which is reproduced below: 4.9. In the above chart the Indexed cost of acquisition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee. There should not be any dispute that the details relating to guideline value fixed by the stamp authorities are available in the public domain and the Ld CIT(A) has adopted the Fair market value pertaining to the year under consideration, while the AO had adopted the value pertaining to AY 2010-11. Hence, we do not find merit in the contentions of revenue. Further, the contentions of the revenue on this issue are liable to be rejected on one more ground. At the time of hearing, the Ld. A.R. also pointed out that the A.O. has reopened the very same assessment year for considering the very same issue and he has passed the assessment order dated 28.3.2016 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by determining the capital gain at Rs. 5,61,35,743/-., i.e. at a figure more than that determined in the original assessment proceedings. We notice that, during the course of re-assessment proceedings, the assessee has furnished the details of valuation fixed by the stamp value authorities for the year relevant to assessment year 2008-09 and accordingly, sought for adoption of fair market value of the land @ Rs. 350/- per sq.ft. Thus, we notice that the details of fair market value fixed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion in the penalty notice. The revenue is aggrieved by the said decision. 14. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court did not consider provisions of section 292B of the Act, which saves proceedings of the revenue in respect of inadvertent errors. The Ld. D.R. placed his reliance on the decision rendered by the coordinate bench in the case of P.M. Abdullah Vs. ITO (ITA Nos.1223 & 1224/Bang/2012 dated 17.10.2016). He also placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Chennai Bench of Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Shri Rajan Kali Muthu (ITA No.2900/Chny/2018 dated 22.5.2019), wherein the decision rendered in the case of P.M. Abdullah (supra) was followed. The Ld. A.R. also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 107, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has expressed the view that all violations will not result in nullifying the orders passed by statutory authorities. Accordingly, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Mills is distinguishable. 15. On the contrary, the Ld. A.R. placed his reliance on the order dated 11.3.2020 p....