2021 (2) TMI 345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A has erred in upholding action of The AO of assessing Long term Gain at Rs. 14,65,063/- in the hands of the appellant, as against taxable Gain of Rs. 1,33,363/- worked out and assessed 1 the AO in case of other co-owners having equivalent interest in the same property, who assessment has been framed U/s. 143(3) by the same AO. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT( has erred in giving direction to Assessing Officer to refer the matter to DVO for determining the value of property as of 01/04/1981. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT has erred in con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tikka No.86 CS No.3848 situated at Navasari. The assessee has 6.25% of his share in the said lan. The assessee received consideration of his share of Rs. 12,50,000/- on which the assessee worked out the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 1.58 lakhs. The AO in order to verify the correctness of claim made enquiry from Sub- Registrar concerned. The Sub-Registrar concerned informed that as per Stamp date Valuation, the value of property determined at Rs. 4.09 crores against the sale consideration of Rs. 2.00 crores. The AO on the basis of valuation of property valued by Stamp Valuation Authority treated the sale consideration of assessee's shares at Rs. 25,56,314/- against the sale consideration received by the assessee of Rs. 12,50,000/-, accor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... AR for the assessee submits that being co-owner the assessee is also entitled for similar treatment. The Revenue cannot treat the assessee indifferently. In support of his submission the AR relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Kumar Rani Meenakshi Achi (207) 292 ITR 624 (Mad), decision of Ahmedabad Bench in Chetanbhai Prahaldbhai Gami Vs. ITO (ITA No. 2082/Ahd/2013) dated 19.07.2019 and CBDT Circular No.014(XL-35) dated 11.04.1955 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of Lower Authorities. 7. We have considered the submission of both the parties and gone through the orders of Lower Authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by the AR of the assessee. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "3. On perusal of records and details submitted by the assessee it was found that the assessee was co-owner having share of 6.25% in the property sold for Rs. 2,00,00,001/- on 19.01.2009 situated at Survey No.86, Lunsikui, Navsari. Value of property as per stamp duty valuation was determined at Rs. 4,09,01,000/- . The assessee has not declared capital gain as he has not filed Return of Income for AY 2009-10 . The said property was inherited by the assessee. The assessee has submitted valuation report of the property from Govt. Approved Valuer who has arrived value of property at Rs. 66,61,020 as on 01.04.1981. The value of the assessee's share comes to Rs. 4,16,314. Indexed cost as per section 48 of the Act is worked out a....