TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 941
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....including the impugned order was shifted to other place and appeal could not be filed within the time. The requisite appeal fees was paid on 24.12.2015, however, the appeal memo was also signed on the same day. However, the appeal could be filed only on 30.12.2012. 3. The learned AR of the assessee submits that in fact there is delay of seven days in filing the present appeal. The non-filing of appeal in time was not intentional, but due to the reason that office of assessee was under renovation and impugned order was mixed up in the office record, the assessee realized for filing the appeal, only when the impugned order was traced on 23.12.2014, while checking the record, the assessee immediately on realizing the urgency of filing the appeal immediately took necessary step and made the payment of necessary appeal fees on 24.12.2015. The intention of assessee is to pursue the appeal on merit. The assessee would not get any benefit for causing delay in filing of appeal. The learned AR for the assessee prayed that when technical issue may be avoid against the substantial justice, the assessee has a good case on merit and likely to succeed and that a liberal view may be taken to con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal." 6. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual filed his Return of Income for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 on 25.03.2009 declaring income of Rs. 1,08,810/-. Initially, the return was accepted under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was reopened under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued 16.09.2010. The assessing officer (AO) recorded that the copy of reasons recorded were provided to the assessee along with the notice under section 148 of the Act. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his reply dated 30.09.2010 and stated that return filed on 25.03.2009 be treated as return in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. 7. The assessment was reopened on the basis of information received by the AO from the officer of Sub-registrar Surat that assessee sold immovable property being agricultural land situated at RS No.43, Block No.39, Village Sonari, Sachin for a sale consideration of Rs. 8,50,000/-. Initially, the sale of the land was executed on 18.04.2007 showing the sale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y additional or actual consideration received over and above of the Fair Market Value as per the register sale deed. The AO not referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO). On the contention raised by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to refer the matter to the DVO for determining of FMV on the date of transfer of agricultural land in question. The DVO filed the report on 10.02.2015 and estimated FMV of asset/land at Rs. 65,89,500/-. The assessee objected to the method of valuation adopted by the DVO. The assessee raised objection that the DVO has taken the sale instances for the year 2011-12 and that no reason or logic to consider the sale instances of 2011-12 is given. The ld.CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee, report of DVO and the objection filed by the assessee held that the valuation officer in his report stated that despite giving opportunity to the assessee, the assessee has not filed any objection before him. The ld.CIT(A) further held that provision of section 50C of the Act is a deeming provision to tax the difference of capital gain. The section 50C of the Act was incorporated to prevent large scale under valuation of real val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....extended to his co-owner whose valuation of the same property, at the same time as that of assessee was accepted, but was not accepted by the Revenue in assessee's case and that the assessee cannot be treated indifferently. The AR for the assessee also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Shri Chetanbhai Prahlad Gami vs. ITO, in ITA No.2082/AHD/2013 dated 19.07.2019 and Ramanbhai Ukabhai Patel (HUF) Vs ITO [2019] 102 taxmann.com 109 (Surat Tribunal) and in M. Ambalal Desai vs. ITO in ITA No.1870/AHD/2015 dated 07.01.2021. 11. On the other hand, the learned DR for the Revenue supported the order of Lower Authorities. The learned DR for the revenue further submits that before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee asked to refer the question of determination of FMV at relevant point of time by DVO. The ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to make the reference for determination of FMV by DVO. The DVO furnished his report and determined the market value of land more than the value adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the valuation of Stamp Valuation Authority and upheld the addition of AO. The learned DR for the revenue further submits that in case of co-owner namely Shri D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Vs. ITO (supra) passed the following order: "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. Before us, the AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that in assessee's co-owner case, the revenue has accepted similar Long Term Capital Gain in the scrutiny assessment. Copy of the assessment order in respect of two co-owners is placed on record. We have noted that no counter to the submission of the assessee, was made by DR that similar Long Term Capital Gain was accepted in case of co-owner. 8. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in ICT vs. Kumararani Meenakshi Achi (supra) held that during the same assessment year same quantity of wealth in possession of co-sharer is subjected to a lower rate of taxation, it would be highly improper to burden a similarly situated cosharer with a higher rate of tax. If such an action on the part of the assessing authorities is sanctioned it would militate against the principle of equality of laws enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. By following the same principle, the Co-ordinate Bench of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mp 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 at Rs. 24,22,947/-. As per stamp duty authority the assessee's share being 6.25% of sale value in the property comes to Rs. 25,56,310/-. Thus capital gain comes to Rs. 1,33,363/-, which was taxable in the hands of the assessee. The capital gain of Rs. 1,33,363 has now been shown by the assessee in the Return of Income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the assessee has not declared suo moto Long Term Capital Gain as he has not filed return of Income. The assessee has consciously not filed return of income to avoid payment of tax. Therefore, Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated on this issue for concealment of income." 11. In view of the above aforesaid factual and legal di....