TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... erroneous in law as well as facts of the case. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that there was no material on record to conclude that the share in the sale proceeds received by the assessee amounted to Rs. 8,25,000/-. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that the department adopted the share of the assessee in sale proceeds at different figures in the orders passed from time to time and thus there was no factual conclusion with regard to sale price and it is only an assumed figure. 4. The assessing officer proceeded to compute the share of the assessee on the basis of letter dated 03.12.2008 which was signed by the assessee (an illiterate shipyard) without having full knowledge of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment after verification of the following points: 1. Assessee should be given due opportunity. 2. AO should determine the correct status. 3. AO should determine the shares of the assessee. 4. AO should determine the price that assessee received so that correct capital gains could be brought to tax. 2.1 Accordingly, the AO issued notice u/s.143(2) on 12.08.2015 and notice u/s.142(1) on 07.03.2016. In response, the assessee's AR Sri S.B.R Patil, Advocate appeared and made submissions. After examination of the material available on record and the information furnished, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s s.143(3) r.w.s. 254 on 31.03.2016, by making the addition of Rs. 8,25,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this regard, reference is made to Central Government Notification u/s 2(1A)(C), proviso, Clause (II)(B) and section 2(l4)(III)(b): Urbanization of areas vide Notification No.(SO 9447) (File No. 164/ 3/ 87-ITA.1), dated 06-1-1994, wherein the list of notified municipalities and their respective distances to be considered for working out areas falling outside the local limits of municipality, are mentioned. In this regard, Sangareddy is the nearest municipality to the place where land is sold i.e Malkapur village is situated. All areas up to a distance of SKM [rom the Sangareddy municipal limits in all directions fall under the 'Capital Asset' as per section 2(14)(iii)(b} of IT Act. Malkapur village is abutting Sangareddy municipality....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e it is situated in Malkapur village which is within 5 KM of Sanga Reddy municipality which is a notified municipality. As the assessee did not file return and did not submit details of cost of acquisition, the cost of acquisition is treated as NIL. The entire amount of Rs. 8,25,000/- is reckoned as Long Term Capital Gains. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and before the CIT(A), inter-alia, submitted that in the absence of any material on record even in the course of reassessment proceedings, with regard to sale price, it is not proper to adopt the sale price at some figure other than that was mentioned in the registered document. Further, the sale price that might have been mentioned in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f should not be taken cognizance of. Besides, the appellant's AR has himself stated that in the original assessment, the sale price was taken at Rs. 24,91,860/- without any basis. Now, the sale price has been taken at Rs. 8,25,000/*, as per the appellant's letter and I do not find any reason to interfere with that. Similarly, the share of the appellant has been taken at 3/4th as per the sale document itself. The status of the appellant as HUF is also taken as HUF as per the said document. I, therefore, find no merits in the submissions of the appellant's AR and the addition made is confirmed." 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 6. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that....