TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuing notices on several dates. Hence we proceed to dispose of this appeal after hearing the ld. DR and after perusing the materials available on record. 3. We find that assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing engineering goods. The assessee sold its depreciable asset being commercial shop No.301, 302 having super built-up area of 667 sq.ft to M/s. Janus Consultants Pvt. Ltd., vide sale deed dated 08/10/2014. The said property is situated at third floor, Sagar Deep, Plot No.11, LSC Saini Enclave, Vikas Nagar, Delhi-92. The sale consideration reported in the sale deed was Rs.31,00,000/-. The ld. AO observed that the market value as per th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch lower than the sale consideration of Rs.31,00,000/- sold in A.Y.2015-16 for the similar extent of the property. The assessee also submitted the valuation report of Mr. Kalyan Bhattacharya, valuers and engineers vide valuation report dated 16/09/2014 wherein the property under dispute was valued for Rs.30,47,633/-. The ld. AO ignored all the submissions made by the assessee for proving the market value of the property and relied upon the working of the builder to levy transfer charges to transfer the property to buyer and not appreciating the fact that such working does not represent the market value of the property sold and does not represent the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp duty valuation authority for the purpos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s records. 3.2 The transfer charges of Rs. 3,78,063/- was payable to the Landlord as they charge this said fees to be paid to Govt. Authorities as and when the said property is converted into freehold land and the transfer which has already been taken place, the Landlord recovers transfer charges from every transferee on a basis of future market price of land and building. The buyer have to comply with the said working of 6% of market value arrived by M./s. Sudarshan Housing & Finance Ltd. and if not complied the said company does not give NOC to the transferor. In the instant case, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the ld. AO by observing as under:- "3.1.5 As per the agreement,dated 08.10.2014, the vendor i.e M/s Janus Consultant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of AO. Therefore, addition of Rs.25,07,907/- u/s 50C made by the AO is hereby sustained. This ground of appeal is dismissed." 3.3. The above primary facts remain undisputed and hence, the same are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. At the outset, we find that assessee had sold the shop for Rs.31,00,000/-. The ld. AO had considered the market value of the property based on the value fixed by the builder i.e. Sudarshan Housing and Finance Ltd., which is relevant for the purpose of levy of transfer charges payable to the builder. We find from the perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, the sum of Rs.56,07,907/- is certainly not the value determined by the stamp duty valuation authority for the purpose of Section 50C of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s challenging the action of the lower authorities in ignoring the revised return along with revised computation of income filed by the assessee wherein the assessee seem to rectify the error in the claim of unabsorbed depreciation of earlier year of Rs.28,70,907/-. 4.1. We have heard ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. The assessee had originally filed its return of income on 30/09/2015 declaring Nil income under normal provisions of the Act and declaring book profit of Rs.20,99,829/- u/s.115JB of the Act. The ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that assessee had claimed set off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.37,22,415/- and sought for details of the same. The assessee in response thereto filed r....