TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 1204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Smt. Shere Banoo Kajani, for the assessment year 2009-10. Since the factual background and the issues involved in both these appeals are common, these appeals are being disposed of with this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Factual background, common in both the cases, leading to the filing of these appeals by the assessees, is that the Commissioner of Income-tax while perusing the assessment records of the assessees, noticed that the assessees are joint owners of a property situated at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, which was transferred during the relevant previous year. The long term capital gains on such transfer have been computed by the assessees by adopting the market value of the property at Rs.3,56,00,000. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....additional estimated value (transfer value being 50% thereon i.e. Rs.44,50,000) and already paid consequential increased tax amount voluntarily. It was also contended that the assessees were not informed about the basis for adopting the market value of the property at Rs.77,38,700 for the purpose of levying stamp duty, and however, since the Joint Sub-Registrar II has issued certificate valuing the property at Rs.30,000 per sq. yard and the assessee has adopted Rs.40,000, there is no mistake in the computation of capital gains by the assessees. There was therefore, no mistake on the part of the Assessing Officer in accepting the long term capital gains disclosed by the assessees, and consequently, the proceedings initiated under S.263 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of S.50C by the Assessing Officer, in the assessment orders passed under S.143(3) of the Act, does not render such assessment either erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He further submitted that the Commissioner of Income-tax in these cases, has no other data, other than the documents perused by the Assessing Officer. He submitted therefore, that the Commissioner of Income-tax erred in holding that there is any error in the order of assessment. In support of his contentions in this behalf, reliance is placed on the decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Eschmann Textures India P. Ltd. dated 21.3.2012 in ITA No.3616/Mum/2011, duly furnishing a copy th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessees and accepted by the Assessing Officer, in relation to the property given for development. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessees have disclosed the relevant capital gains and the Assessing Officer has accepted, while framing the regular assessment under S.143(3) of the Act, the amounts of capital gains disclosed by the assessee. That being so, there can be no allegation of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, while framing the regular assessments, with regard to the computation of capital gains. As for the correctness of the computation of capital gains by the assessees, the dispute is with regard to the value to be adopted for the property in question as the market value as on 1.1.2008. While....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....movable properties, in this behalf, is quite convincing. As such, the value determined by the sub-registrar as on 15.11.2008 for purposes of stamp duty for registration of development agreement-cum-GPA, cannot be taken as clinching and determinative of the value in terms of S.50C of the Act. It is more so, because the assessees have no means of either estimating or evaluating the market value of the property, but to rely upon a certificate as issued by the property registering authorities. Further, the manner or method adopted by the sub-registrar office for arriving at the value of the property, for stamp duty purposes, is not known to the assessees, and the stamp duty, in fact, was claimed to have been paid by the developer. In any event,....