TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 76
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. First Appellate Authority confirming the order U/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. First appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the adoption of Rs. 1,500/- claimed by the appellant for arriving at the taxable capital gain. 3. The Ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the adoption of Rs. 400/- per sft per construction as against Rs. 500/- claimed by the appellant for arriving at the taxable capital gain. 4. The Ld. First appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 20 lakhs out of Rs. 30 lakhs claimed as deduction U/s. 54 of the IT Act. 5. a) The Ld. Fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... effect from 15/3/2021. 2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15/03/2020 till 14/3/2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15/3/2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15/3/2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply." (emphasis supplied). In view of the aforementioned guidelines of the Apex Court, it is prayed that the delay of 136 days in filing the appeal is condoned." 4. On perusal of the delay condonation petition filed by the assessee's Counsel, I find that the delay of 136 days in filing of the assessee'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing as follows:- "7. After going through the submissions of the assessee and considering the values mentioned by the SRO, Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad along with the facts of the case, I am of the view that the values adopted by the assessee is without any basis in the absence of corroborative evidences in support of the claim except a registered valuer's report and the same is on higher side. Therefore, the value pertaining to land admeasuring 170.8 sq yds as on 1/4/1981 is adopted at Rs. 500/- per sq yds as against the value of Rs. 1,500/- per sq yd taken by the assessee. Similarly, the cost of construction for the building constructed during the FYs 1991-92 and 1992-93 admeasuring Rs. 4,050/- sq ft. is valued at Rs. 400/- per sft ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee but however, he could not produce any evidence to justify his stand. The Ld AR further argued that the exemption claimed by the assessee U/s. 54F may be granted as the assessee has utilised the entire amount for the acquisition of the new asset. The Ld. DR on the other hand prayed for confirming the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. 9. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. Since the assessee is unable to produce any evidence with respect to his cost of land as on 1/4/1981 and cost of construction, I do not have any other option but to confirm the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities who had relied on the SRO valuation and fairly estimated the cost of construction. Therefore, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mill Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors wherein it was held, that 'thus there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that everyone is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement there is no such Maxim known to the law. In the given case before us also, it is not disputed that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions prescribed under section 54 of the Act barring the deposit of the sale proceeds in the "capital gain scheme account". Moreover, the facts reveal that the assessee had deposited the entire sale proceeds in his savings bank account maintained with nationalized bank out of which he has con....