TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 979
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al raised by assessee in ITA No. 19/Alld./2023 for assessment year 2017-18, in memo of appeal filed with Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad(hereinafter called " the tribunal") , reads as under:- "1.That the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) erred not to deliver his judgment or decision on each point of grounds of appeal, Statement of fact & written submissions filed by the assessee appellant. 2. That the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) erred not to consider that the learned assessing officer not consider the reply and its annexure filed on 12.01.19 in response to notice under section 142(1) dated 07.01.19. 3. That the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) erred not to consider that the assessment order passed on 28.12.19 after 11 months 16 days of reply dated 12.01.19 and the assessing officer neither refer the case to valuation officer nor raised any query about the dispute which shows that the assessing officer was satisfied with the value declared but he suddenly changed his mind and assessed the capital gain on stamp duty value which is totally arbitrary and against law and fact. 4. That the Commissioner Income Tax (Appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITAL GAINS/LOSS ON SALE OF PROPERTY". Point wise Submissions/arguments- 1- In response to the Ist Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/2018- 19/1011650739(1) Dated 20.08.2018(Date Fixed for response was 05-09- 18), the assessee appellant was unable to furnish his reply online electronically through "E-Proceeding" because E- Proceeding facility was not activated up to date 05.09.2018 fixed to response. The Assessee appellant filed a prayer to activate the "E-filling/Proceeding window of the Income Tax portal by using "e-nivaran" on 04.09.2018 vide Acknowledgment No. 100000001143224 and also posted an e-mail ([email protected]) to the Assessing Officer on same date at 01.06 p.m. requesting activation for "e-filling/proceeding window". After activation of the above said "e-filling/proceeding window" of the portal on 01st October 2018, the assessee appellant filed a response of the Notice vide Acknowledgment No. 01101810464409 (Copies are enclosed herewith for ready reference). But the Learned assessing officer denied the compliance made by assessee appellant on 01.10.18 of the said notice. Hence the response filed by the assessee appellant was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing officer in performing his duties and wilfully passed an arbitrary order against the laws and facts. 4. That the hard Copies of all above said documents was also handed over to the Learned Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings by Assessee Appellant. 5. That the assessee appellant sold a land of 0.5260 hectare out of total purchased land of 1.335 hectare situated at Hardon, Khaga, Fatehpur on 11.01.17 for a consideration of Rs. 5, 00,000.00 at the rate of Rs. 95 per square meter. The stamp duty value of Rs. 15,78,000.00 of the land sold was much higher than the market value of the land. The assessee appellant attached two other sale deeds as an example to strengthen the reasonableness of the market value adopted by the Learned Assessing Officer with e-response acknowledgment no. 12011911093224, the first sale deed submitted as example dated 28.02.17 for sale of 0.3480 hectare of land situated at nearby location in Hardon. Khaga. Fatehpur, for a consideration Rs. 2,00,000.00 only, @ Rs. 57.47 per square meter and second sale deed submitted as example dated 03.12.16 for sale of 0.2666 hectare of land at nearby location in Hardon, Khaga,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Acquisition- .5260x2,80,000/1.3350-Rs.1,10,332.00 (iv) Indexed Cost of Acquisition( 2001-02) =1,10332x426/389- Rs.1,20,815.00 (v) As per New calculation of Indexed Cost- 1,20.815x264/100= Rs. 3,18,953.00 (vi) LONG TERM CAPITALGAINS-5 00,000(-) 3,18,953= Rs. 1,81,047.00 8- That being the quasi-judicial Officer, the Learned Assessing officer erred to follow the rules of Natural Justice and Equity, not deliberately ignored the evidences duly placed on assessment Records: 9. That a rectification application under section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 filed on 28/01/2020 is pending before the Learned Assessing Officer. 10-That the Learned Assessing Officer dropped the penalty proceedings accepting the above said facts duly narrated in the reply of the penalty Notice, on 10.06.2020. 11- That the assessment order passes under section 143(3) dated 28.12.2019 is (an arbitrary order against the laws and facts) bad in law and facts and the demand to be quashed (made in consequence of it). "The taxing authorities have quasi-judicial powers and so they must act in a fair and not a partisan manner" CIT Versus Simo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 Hectares for Rs. 5,00,000/- But the stamp duty valuation of the property was Rs. 15,78,000/-. Since the Stamp Duty valuation of property was more than the actual sale consideration, the Assessing Officer took the Stamp Duty valuation of the property for calculation of Long Term Capital gain and accordingly calculated the Long term capital gain. 7.3 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted the documentary evidences like purchase deed, sale deed, bank statement etc. On perusal of the same it is observed that the appellant has purchased land measuring 1.335 Hectares and out of the same 0.5260 Hectares was sold for Rs. 5,00,000/-. But the stamp duty valuation of the property for the said land is Rs. 15,78,000/-. As per the provisions of Income Tax Act, if the sale consideration declared by the assesse (seller) is less than the Stamp duty value, then the stamp duty value shall become deemed sale consideration for the purpose of calculating capital gain tax. However, it is seen that the AO has grossly erred in determining the Indexed cost of acquisition. Prima Facie, the appellant has sold only 0.5260 hectares. Hence, the Indexed cost of acquisition ....