TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & Developers for development of 791 sq.yards bearing Plot No.27 & 28, R.S. No.189/4A, Narayanapuram, Rajahmundry, A.P vide doc No.2038/2016 dated 24.02.2016. As per the document she got 8 Flats of 1100 sq.ft. each and the total constructed area of 8800 square feet. The total market value of the project as per the document (SRO) is Rs.2,70,50,000/- (land value Rs.79,10,000/- and market value of constructed area is Rs. 1,91,40,000/-. Assessee has not disclosed the land transfer transaction in her return for the A.Y.2016-17. 3.1 As per the Development Agreement cum GPA, Builder share is 60% and the assessee being landowner share is 40%. He, therefore, calculated the assessee's share in the project at Rs.1,08,20,000/- i.e.,(27050000 X 40%)". The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has not furnished the details of cost of acquisition of the land transferred. As per the document. she got this land through Will vide doc.No.124/1975 dated 03.11.1974 from her mother. Her mother acquired the property in the year 1965 vide doc.no.3576/1965 dated 27.09.1965. Hence, he allowed indexed cost of acquisition as per the fair market value as on 01.04.1981. Since the assessee got this property ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The order of the learned CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal is not only erroneous both on facts and in law but is perverse. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the year of assessability of Capital gains as the year in which development agreement is entered into in spite of bringing to his notice the revenue's stand both before the jurisdictional high court and at New Delhi that it is only when possession is handed over. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the computation of Capital gains by considering the Composite value adopted by the SRO of Rs.1,08,20,000 for registering the development agreement though it is demonstrated that it contains value of land and structure and what is to be deemed to have been consideration 1s only the value of super structure or the land and not both. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding adoption of cost of acquisition as on 1-4- 1981 as per SRO which is per acres when it should have been for sq.yards observing that the assessee has not adduced any evidence instead of directing the AO to ascertain the value from the SRO which is the prayer of the assessee. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in relying on the decision of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act which was claimed in the return of income" Further in para 1 of petition, the appellant assessee submitted that she has been advised to raise specific ground with respect to the deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act 1961 though the same was claimed in the return of income. The appellant has been advised to take a legal ground which was not taken before the authorities below and which ground goes to the root of the matter in not considering the claim of the appellant u/s 54 F of the Act by the authorities below 4 In relation with the claim made by appellant assessee following facts Submitted for kind perusal (a) The assessee field her original return of income for AY 2016-17 u/s 1394 of IT Act. 1961 vide Ack No 688150130240317 dated 24 03 2017 On perusal of the return of income it is found that the assessee has declared following income particulars in her ITR (i) Profit or gains from business/ Profession Rs.30,000 (ii) Income from Long Term Capital Gain Rs.Nil (iii) Income from Other Sources Rs.3,36,886/- (iv) Gross Total Income Rs.3,66,886/- (v) Agricultural Income Rs.2,31,250/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not factually correct and question of adjudication of the same by lower authority does not arise as the assessee has never claimed the said deduction. 7. The assessee in her additional ground seeking the relief for the claim which she never claimed before assessing officer and before Ld CIT(A) and no inference has been drawn by the revenue authority on the said claim and therefore the ground raised by appellant assessee is factually incorrect and not tenable and Hon'ble' ITAT may be requested to reject the additional ground. 8 Assessment record in 01 Vol. enclosed herewith. Encl: as above Yours faithfully Sd/- (Alok Kumar Dixit) Income-Tax Officer Ward-11(1) Hyderabad" 8.1 He accordingly submitted that the additional ground should not be admitted. 9. We have heard the rival arguments made by both sides regarding the admissibility of the additional ground. We find the additional ground raised by the assessee is not a legal ground, but it requires verification of facts especially when the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had categorically stated before the Assessing Officer that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as per SRO. In such circumstances, it would be correct to look into section 45(5A) though introduced from 1.4.2017 as it is from the I.T. Act only and as per this provision it is the SRO value of land transferred. Therefore, the sale consideration should have been adopted at Rs.47,46,000/-. Further the cost of acquisition adopted by the Assessing Officer is value which is per acre when it should have been verified with the SRO to find out the value of per sq. yard on 1.4.1981 and such value should have been indexed and allowed as cost of acquisition. However, the learned CIT (A) has not properly appreciated this issue also and therefore, the order of the learned CIT (A) should be set aside on this issue. He also relied on various decisions. 12. The learned DR, on the other hand, drew the attention of the Bench to the detailed order passed by the learned CIT (A) on the issue of computation and or taxability of capital gain and submitted that the learned CIT (A) in his detailed order has rejected the claim of the assessee. His decision is based on the decision of the ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Smt. K. Vijaya Lakshmi (Supra) where it has been held that provision of section....