TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A). 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) has misinterpreted the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act by restricting the appellant's right to contestthe stamp duty value adopted by the learned Assessing Officer without giving credence to the fact that the appellant had not disputed the said value before any authority. (b) That in this connection, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in passing his order, by considering the stamp duty value of the property amounting to Rs. 1,59,31,035/- as deemed sale consideration,prior to the receipt of Valuation Report of the District Valuation Officer (DVO) which was pending as on the date of his order and as per which the value of the property was Rs. 1,48,10,000/-. 3. (a) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground of appeal of the appellant wherein the learned Assessing Officer had restrictedthe deduction under section 54 of the Act to Rs. 15,48,136/-(being investment in one residential unitjas against the totalinvestment made by the appellant in twoadjoining residential units. (b) That in this connection, once the sale consideration is accepted at Rs. 1,48,10,000/- (being the value dete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of stamp duty valuation. The ld AO noted that the assessee has objected at a very late stage and there is no sufficient time left to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer for valuation. He further held that the assessee has made investment in two properties i.e. LM-508 and 509 at Eco CITI whereas the assessee is eligible to get deduction only for one property and up to the extent of investment made upto the due date of filing. He collected the information from the Builder M/s. Suptertech Ltd. He found that up to 31/08/2011 i.e. the due date of filing of the return, the assessee invested Rs. 15,48,136/- in property LM-508 and Rs. 11,77,798/- in property LM-509 and balance amount has not been deposited in to the capital gain account scheme. He then granted the assessee the deduction u/s 54(1) of the Act for LM-508 of Rs. 15,48,136/-. The assessee also contested that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Gita Duggal 257 CTR 208. Further, the ld AO distinguished the same as there is no agreement between builder and the assessee and therefore, he held that the assessee is not legally bound to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 3rd proviso should be considered retrospective in nature. For this proposition the ld AR submitted that the above issue is squarely covered by the various decision of the coordinate bench and therefore, same should be followed. 6. The ld DR vehemently objected to the same. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the additional ground raised by the assessee. We find that by this additional ground the assessee is challenging the adoption of the deemed sales consideration according to the provisions of Section 50 C of the income tax act. We find that assessee has already challenged the adoption of fair market value as per provisions of Section 50 C of the income tax act before the learned assessing officer. Now by this additional ground assessee is merely changed challenging the fact that when the difference between the fair market value as per the provisions of Section 50 C of the income tax act and the actual sale consideration is less than 10%, the actual sale consideration cannot be disturbed. This is merely a legal argument, therefore we admit the additional ground. 8. Coming to the additional ground admitted by us, We have carefully consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in nature cannot be given a retrospective effect. In view of this, in the facts and circumstances of the case whether the assessee has purchased two adjacent residential houses, according to us the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54 of the Act on the amount invested in both the houses. Further, the various judicial precedents of the Hon‟ble High Courts also supports the contention of the ld AR. Thus, ground No. 3 of the appeal is allowed. 13. Ground No. 4 is with respect to ad hoc addition of Rs. 50,000/- u/s 69 of the Act upheld by the ld CIT(A). The fact shows that the assessee has made an investment in cash of Rs. 1 lakhs as a payment to M/s. Supertech builder on 15.03.2011 and for this the assessee has shown that she has withdrawn the above sum from the bank account No. 6959 of the Punjab National Bank. The assessee has withdrawn of Rs. 60,000/- on 01.02.2010 and Rs. 1 lakh on 03.03.2010. Out of the above sum , on 15.03.2011 the assessee has deposited Rs. 1 lakhs with the builder. The ld AO made an addition u/s 69 of the Act whereas, the ld CIT(A) reduced it to Rs. 50,000/-. The ld AR contested that the assessee kept money at home to meet medical emergency of h....