2022 (12) TMI 1169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in ITA No.2416/Ahd/2017 for A.Y.2013- 2014. 2. Briefly stating facts, the assessee in this case filed his return of income for A.Y.2013-2014 declaring total income of Rs.4,62,980/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and in the order under section 143(3) of the Assessing Officer made the additions with the observation that the assessee has sold immovable property for sale consideration of Rs.95,00,000/- on 14.5.2015 and paid stamp duty of Rs.39,35,200/-, however, as per the information available from the office of Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad-9, Bopal, the market value of the said property is determined at Rs.8,03,09,250/- as against the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee in the sale deed at Rs.95,00,000/-. The As....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../- made u/s. 50C of the Act, by the Assessing Officer, without considering the detailed reasoning given by the Assessing Officer that the impugned land was in the possession of the assessee till 10.05.2012 and hence, the Long Term Capital Gain on sale of this land is required to be charged in the hands of the assessee in AY 2013-14?" [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that First Proviso to Section 50C inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 was retrospective in nature?" 6. Heard learned standing counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for Mrs. Kalpana Raval, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant. He submitted that the order of Tribunal is erroneous. As per the agreement dated 24.7.2008 (F. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IT(A). For this reason alone, the addition made by treating the said transaction as transfer undertaken during the year and substituting the stamp duty value for the sale consideration as per the provisions of Section 50C of the Act is therefore not tenable in law. Even the computation of capital gain made by the AO as reproduced above, reducing the capital again already taxed in A.Y 2009-10 from the total capital gains computed is an implicit admission on the part of the Revenue that the impugned transaction already stands taxed in an earlier year. There is absolutely no scope or reason for taxing a transaction of capital gain earned on account of transfer of capital asset in two separate years as the transfer of the asset can take place i....