TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in issuing the notice u/s. 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act as well as passing the order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering the fact that reopening of the case of the appellant company under section 147 of the Act by the Ld.AO merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without application of mind in absence of any tangible material and /or independent clinching evidence as well as cogent material evidence on record for reopening of the case of the appellant company and therefore, in view of various judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court and various other High Courts, the reopening of the case of the appellant company is merely on borrowed satisfaction. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has not properly considered various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant company. II. Addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 85,860/- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 85,860/- out of total addition of Rs. 3,43,960/- on account of Long Term Capita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amp valuation. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of Section 50C of the Act and made addition of Rs. 3,43,960/- to the income of the assessee. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) while passing the order in the case of the assessee relied upon the order passed in the case of Bhojison Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 09.09.2022 and confirmed the addition in the hands of the assessee with the following observations:- "5. The grounds of appeal no. 8 to 10 are interconnected with each other, are against the addition of Rs. 3,43,960/- on account of 50C of the Act. 5.1 Similarly for these grounds also, the undersigned has passed the appellate order in the case of its co-owner M/s. Bhojison infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for the same A.Y.2012-13 on the same issue i.e. against the reopening of the assessment and passing of assessment order vide appeal order no. CIT(A), Ahmedabad- 1/10742/2019-20 dated 09.09.2022, wherein after considering the reply of the and merit of the case, the action of the AO in making addition on account of section 50C is upheld and hence confirmed. The observation of the undersigned in the said appellate order in the case of M/s. Bhojison inf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt company is to be accepted. The appellant had relied on the judicial pronouncements also. 6.3 I find that the appellant has taken a plea that the Jantri (Circle rate) of the agricultural property under consideration was Rs. 800 per sq. meter, however, they had sold the alleged property under consideration at Rs. 5,900/- per sq. meter, which is much higher than the Circle Rate. Therefore, provision of section 50C is not applicable in the case of appellant. In this regard, I find that the claim of the appellant is not correct because the Stamp Valuation Authority had determined the full value of consideration of the alleged property as per the Jantry rate, which was not objected by the appellant. Further, the contention fot he appellant regarding Circle rate of Rs. 800 Sq. meter was for agricultural land. However, as per the DVO report and Stamp Valuation Authority, the land appears to be urban land because of its location & lack of agricultural activity. Hence, the claim of the appellant is not correct Further, it is important to mention here that the District Valuation Officer in column 12 of the valuation report, had reported that the appellant had not submitted any objection ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessed by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the "stamp valuation authority") for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed SHALL, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. In this case, I find that the appellant and other persons had sold an immovable property bearing survey no. 39 (old survey no. 8) of Rundh Village of taluka city, Surat for sale consideration of Rs. 9,49,89,978/- on 09.08.2011. However, as per the Jantri rate adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority (fair market value as decided by the authority), total consideration of the said land was Rs. 12,88,00,000/-. Since, the share of the appellant was 1.01% of the total sale consideration and accordingly, the appellant had shown Rs. 9,66,000/- as safe consideration. However, as per the Jantri rate, full value of consideration in the hand of the appellant should have been Rs. 13,09,830/-. Since, the sale consideration as per Jantri rate (assessed by the Stamp Authority) was more than the sale consideration disclosed by the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue (FMV) of property at Rs. 46.96 lakhs - Assessing Officer computed capital gain by adopting full value of consideration on basis of DVO's report instead of actual sale consideration of Rs. 42 lakhs shown by assessee which resulted into addition of Rs. 4.96 lakhs - Whether when Assessing Officer had obtained DVO's report, same was binding on him - Held, yes- Whether, therefore, valuation done by DVO was correctly adopted as full value of safe consideration - Held, yes [Paras 5 and 17] [In favour of revenue] IT: Where assessee had sold a property and Assessing Officer after rejecting valuation of property submitted by assessee referred matter to DVO to obtain fair market value, valuation done by DVO was binding on Assessing Officer." 6.4.4 Reliance is also made on the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Seksaria Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(2), Mumbai [2016] 69 taxmann.com 342 (Mumbai) [31-10- 2014], had passed the judgement in favour of Revenue. The head note of the judgement is as under- "Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gain - Special Provision for computing full value consideration in certain cases -....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,52,451/- (1.01% of Rs. 10,34,91,000/-). Thus, the difference in sale consideration as per DVO's report and sale consideration shown by the appellant comes to Rs. 86,4517-(Rs. 10,52,451 - Rs. 9,66,000/-). Therefore, additions of Rs. 86,451/- on account of section 50C is justified out of total addition of Rs. 3,43,830/- and therefore, stand confirmed. Further, the AO is directed to delete the remaining addition of Rs. 2,57,379/- (Rs. 3,43.830 - Rs. 86.451). Thus, ground no. 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 are partly allowed." 5.2 Since, the addition on account of section 50C was upheld by the undersigned by giving detailed observation (reproduced supra), therefore, keeping in view of the decision taken in the case of M/s. Bhojison infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (a co-owner of the same land) vide appeal no. CIT(A), Ahmedabad-1/10742/2019-20 dated 09.09.2022, the addition on account of section 50C in the case of the appellant is also upheld and hence confirmed. Further, the AO is also directed to consider the confirmed addition of Rs. 85,860/- [1.01% of (Rs. 10,34,91,000 - Rs. 9,49,89,978). Remaining addition of Rs. 2,58,100/- is deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 8 to 10 are also partly allowe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... market value as on doing reverse working for deriving Jantri Value of the property under consideration. After taking cognisance of the assessee's reply, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 3,43,840/- under Section 50C of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that as regards to ground no.1, challenging the validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that reopening of the case of the assessee under Section 147 of the Act merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without application of mind in absence of any tangible material and/or independent clinching evidence is not justified. As regards ground no.2, the Ld. AR submitted that addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) to the extent of Rs. 86,451/- out of total addition of Rs. 3,43,830/- on account of LTCG is not proper. The Ld. AR submitted that the property sold by the assessee company was litigated property and there were various litigations in the said property it was not possible to sell the property at market ....