TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centers,(NFAC) Delhi and Thiruvananthapuram respectively for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Since common grounds are raised by these three assessee(s) arising from the same transaction of sale of land as well as same facts and circumstances therefore, these three appeals are clubbed together for the purpose of hearing and disposal. The grounds raised in Appeal No. ITA/286/Ind/2023 is reproduced as under: "On the facts and the circumstances of the case: 1. The Ld. AO was not justified in passing the order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was not j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther contended that the land was sold by the farmers during the assessment year 2006-07 and therefore, the reopening of the case is not valid. The A.O did not accept the contention of the assessee and held that the property was sold vide sale deed dated 15.03.2023 and therefore the capital gain arising from the transaction is assessable to tax for the assessment year 2013-14. Accordingly the A.O assessed the Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of each of the co-owners i.e. 1/10 share which comes to Rs. 14,57,400/-. The assessee challenged the action of A.O before CIT(A) but could not succeed. 4. Before the Tribunal the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that initially the assessee has entered into an agreement to sale of land measuring 0.5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....value consideration amounts to assessing the excess income in the hands of the assessee over and above of the actual guideline value. In support of this contention he has referred to the valuation report whereby the Registered Valuer has valued the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 as well as fair market value as on the date of sale. Ld. AR submitted that registered valuer has taken the guideline of agriculture land @ Rs. 1,48,20,000/- per hectare whereas the A.O has adopted the full valuation consideration at Rs. 1,45,74,000/- of land measuring 0.25 acre/0.101 hectare. Ld. AR has further submitted that the assessee has filed an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules 1963 for admission of the valuation report as additional evidence in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee raised before the A.O as well as CIT(A) is concerned in the absence of any registered agreement the same is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Suraj Lamp & Industries V/s State of Haryana 340 ITR1 as well as in case of CIT V/s Balbir Singh Maini 398 ITR 531. He has further submitted that the assessee did not file even the return of income in response to the notice u/s 148, hence the claim of exemption u/s 54B cannot be entertained. Ld. DR has further stated that full value consideration has been adopted by the A.O which is strictly as per the provisions of Section 50C(1) of the Act whereby the A.O is bound to adopt the full value consideration as stamp duty valuation which is not disputed by the assessee. Therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of acquisition or exemption u/s 54B of the Act. So far as assessing the entire sale consideration u/s 50C(1) of the Act is concerned the A.O is not justified in making the addition of the entire sale consideration without allowing the cost of acquisition. Even the A.O has not made any attempt to ascertain the cost of acquisition or fair market value as on 01.04.1981 while assessing the Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee therefore, to that extent the order of the A.O is not sustainable. Further the assessee has also disputed the fair market value of the land in question as adopted by the A.O being full valuation consideration u/s 50C(1) of the Act in view of the fact reported by the registered valuer in the valuation report ....