TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 937
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Arjun Goud, Smt. Moola Padmaja, Smt. P. Lavanya & Smt. A. Girija. 2. The Revenue's twin appeals ITA Nos. 1614/Hyd/2016 and 1616/Hyd/2016 in respect of Sri A. Vinod and Sri A. Srinivas Goud and latter taxpayer's cross-appeals ITA No. 205/Hyd/2017 alongwith remaining assessees' appeals ITA Nos. 98 to 102/Hyd/2017 arise against the CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad's separate orders; all dated 17-08-2016 passed in case Nos. 0644, 0641, 0640, 0643, 0645 & 0642/CIT(A)-1/Hyd/2014-15/2016-17; involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, 'the Act']; respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. It transpires at the outset that these assessees' instant appeals suffer from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eave to add/delete, substitute, amend any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. (v) For these and other grounds that may be canvassed at the time of hearing of the appeal, it is beseeched that addition made by the assessing officer on account of long term capital gains from transfer of property be restored". 5. Both the learned representatives next take us to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion deleting the impugned addition as under: "5. Ground-I: Addition u/s. 50C: During the survey conducted on 14-03-2013 in the premises of M/s. Western Constructions a partnership firm, it was noticed that the land admeasuring an extent of Acres 06.02 Guntas situated at Darga Hussain Shahwali Village, Serilingampally Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 4,87,25,248 The total consideration was valued at Rs. 12,18,13,120/-. Before me, the Applicant argued that: a) The Section 50C says: "where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed [or assessable] by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the "stamp valuation authority") for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed [or assessable] shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs making the impugned long term capital gain addition(s). There is hardly any dispute that the registered development agreement herein was executed on 03-05-2007 earlier with M/s. Neelima Constructions and than with M/s. Western Constructions; respectively. This registered development agreement stated the land in issue to be 6 acres 2 guntas. There is further no issue that the assessees had very well declared their respective capital gains, share-wise; respectively. 7. Learned departmental representative invited our attention to the Assessing Officer's assessment order(s) dt. 28-05-2014 inter alia stating that he had proceeded to make the impugned addition(s) after getting the stamp value from the SRO's office qua the land in q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the instant sole issue fail therefore. 9. We are now left with assessees' appeals ITA Nos. 98 to 102/Hyd/2017 and ITA No. 205/Hyd/2017 (supra). Their identical sole substantive ground pleads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in disallowing cost of acquisition claim to the tune of Rs. 3 crores paid to Shri A. Sahdeva and Shri A. Krishna to the tune of Rs. 1.5 crores each. The Assessing Officer's assessment order(s) held in identical terms that these assessees had failed to prove the purpose of the impugned payment(s) over and above the compromise terms which allowed only Rs. 8 crores out of that claimed to the tune of Rs. 11 crores. 10. The CIT(A) has restored the instant issue back to Assessing Officer as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act vide Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01-06-2001 omitting the clinching statutory expression 'or he may set aside'. The fact also remains that the assessees have not been able to prove as to under what circumstances they had to pay the impugned sum totalling to Rs. 3 crores (supra) over and above Rs. 8 crores as per the terms of settlement. We therefore deem it appropriate that these assessees need to be afforded one more effective innings before the Assessing Officer to explain the justification of Rs. 3 crores made to the twin recipients (supra) as falling u/s. 48(i) and (ii) of the Act; as the case may be. These assessees are directed to appear themselves or through their authorised representative; as the case may be on or befor....