2021 (4) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....PAD) repeatedly on the address mentioned in Form no. 36. The said notices have been received back unserved by the postal authorities with remarks "left"/ "not known". The notice was also sent through the office of Departmental Representative. The office of the Departmental Representative has served to the assessee through email, on the email ID furnished by the assessee. The service report furnished by the department shows that email was successfully delivered on mail ID "[email protected]". The assesee has not furnished revised Form 36 intimating his current/ new address. Therefore, the notice sent through email is deemed to be served in accordance with Sec 282(1)(c) read with rule 127 of the IT Rules. Despite serve of notice ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncome Tax (Appeals). 4. During First Appellate Proceedings, the DVO filed his valuation report determining value of property at Rs. 2,82,78,000/- as on 15.06.2010 i.e. the date of execution of the registered Deed of conveyance. The assessee contended before the First Appellate Authority that the value as on the date of executing sale agreement i.e. 08.12.2018 should have been determined by the DVO, as substantial consideration was received on that date and the possession of land was handed over to the purchaser at the time of execution of Agreement to sell. To support his contention, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 491 (Bom). The C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....learned DR and have examined the orders of the authorities below. The solitary issue raised in the appeal by Revenue is against the findings of CIT(A) in directing the AO to consider fair market value of the property as determined by the DVO on the date of agreement of sale. From the examination of records, we find that the tax effect involved in the present appeal by the Revenue is less than the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 03.03.2019 for filing of appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, without adverting to the merits of issue raised in appeal, this appeal by the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect. 7. The assessee in its appeal has assailed the findings of the CIT(A) in not allowing the de....