TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said scrutiny rendering the assessment as erroneous and needs to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CTT(Appeals) NF AC (Delhi), has erred in law and on facts in holding that the issue involved (i.e.) Sec. 45 & 54B highly related and inter linked despite the facts that both sections are independent, and both have their own machinery for application in the income tax law. 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC (Delhi), has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,50,07,170/-on account of capital gain by not accepting the FMV adopted by the assessee which was supported by the Govt. Approved Valuer. 4. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC (Delhi), has erred in holding the action of the assessing officer of not allowing the following deduction which are prima facie allowable against the capital gain income: (a) Agricultural land purchased at Ramnagar Rs. 35,00,157/- u/s. 54B (b) Residential House Purchased Rs. 29,12,500/- u/s. 54F It is prayed that the order passed by the assessing officer may be annulled and the addition made by the assessing officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) may be deleted. 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual, and has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued a show - cause notice to the assessee, to explain the difference, 5. In response to the notice of the assessing officer, the assessee has submitted its reply, before the assessing officer, which is reproduced below: "We have received your letter dated 6.12.2016. On the basis of valuation report favourable on your side, you are willing to increase and worked out the capital gain. The valuation of your government officer is totally contrary to the valuation done by our govt. approved valuer. Our govt valuer has already assigned the plus point of our land. The said plus point are shown by our valuer on page 2 in item 6 and 7 and 8 and plus point are also mentioned on page 3 of the valuation report. Not only all these points are not considered properly but have been rejected summarily. The Explanation given on page no. 5 against the item no.9 is also not considered lawfully. All these points suggest that your departmental valuer has not remained serious while deciding the issue. Subsequent objection by our reply has not been rejected. The decision taken by your valuer is harsh, heavy and arbitrary based on whimsical reasons. Under these circumstances you are hereby requested....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....higher side and not acceptable, and therefore, the matter was referred to the Valuation Cell of Income Tax department for valuation of assessee`s property in terms of cost of acquisition. The Valuation Cell, vide order u/s 55A of the Act dated 29.11.2016, estimated the fair market value of the property in question at Rs. 5,82,098/- as on 01/04/1981 instead of Rs. 35,61,360/-taken by the registered valuer of the assessee. Therefore, in light of valuation done by assistant valuation officer, Valuation Cell of 1.1. Department, the working of capital gain by assessing officer is as under: Sale consideration received by the assessee Rs. 6,71,82,000/- Less Indexed cost of acquisition: (1) Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 FMV, as on 01.04.1981 valued by DVO at Rs. 5,82,098/- Cost of acquisition x cost of index Rs 5,82,098 x 939/100= Rs. 54,65,900/- Long term capital gain Rs. 6,17,16,100/- The long-term capital gain arised from the agriculture land sold during the year under consideration, was worked out by the assessing officer at Rs. 6,17,16,100/-. The benefit of deduction claimed under section 54B in the return of income of Rs. 3,67,08,930/- was allowe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... take the permission from the higher authority to refer the matter to the valuation officer and hence the order passed by the assessing officer should be quashed. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, to support his argument, relied on the following decisions: 1. ITA Nos.02 & 03/Ahd/2023 dated 28.06.2023 in the case of Mohhmed Hanif Nannamiya Kazi. 2. ITA No.981/Ahd/2019 dated 20.03.2020 in the case of Shri Narendra kumar Rameshbhai Patel. 3. ITA No.2611/Kol/2019, dated 22.02.023, in the case of Sukhdham Infrastructures LLP. 4. ITA No.391/Pun/2023 dated 07.08.2023, Manikrao Amrutrao Satav 11. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submitted that computation of capital u/s 45 of the Act and providing exemption u/s 54B of the Act, are co-related issue, therefore provisions of section 54B of the Act should not be read alone, it should be read with section 45 of the Act. Besides, ld DR relied on the findings of the assessing officer and stated that addition made by the assessing officer may be confirmed. 12. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of ....