2023 (10) TMI 1540

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7.2019. In her return of income, the assessee has declared income from Long Term Capital Gain of Rs..3,22,370/-. From the computation of the capital gains, the Assessing Officer [Centralized Processing Centre] observed that the Long Term Capital Gains have been computed at Rs..53,22,370/- and assessee has deposited Rs..50,00,000/- in eligible bonds and claimed exemption u/s. 54EC of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act"). Accordingly, order u/s. 143(1) was completed and long term capital gain of Rs..58,07,342/- in place of Rs..3,22,370/- was determined. The above adjustment was made by the Assessing Officer (CPC) u/s. 50C of the Act by taking the stamp duty valuation of Rs..13,29,23,000/- against the full value of consideration of Rs..10 cro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant has received only 1/6th of cash component of consideration on Rs. 10,00,00,000/- whereas the admitted value of consideration by all co-owners was Rs.13,29,23,000/-. Thus the total consideration taken by the appellant for computation of Long Term Capital Gains is not only less than the full value of consideration as determined by the stamp duty Authority but also that admitted by the appellant. Thus, in the instant case the appellant should have taken 1/6 th of Rs. 13,29,23,000/- the amount of consideration (both case and kind) for the purpose of capital gains. 5.2.3 Therefore in the instant case whether Section 50C of IT Act is applied or not, the full value of consideration of Rs10 Cr. as taken by the applicant is less than the ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....laim for amount of full value of consideration u/s 50C is incorrect, and thus incorrect claim is apparent from information given by the appellant in ITR herself. 5.3.5 In view of the above, it is held that the AO (CPC) was well within his jurisdiction in making adjustments u/s 50C of IT Act." 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before us and raised following grounds in her appeal: - "1. The learned AO has erred, and the Hon. CIT(A) has erred in confirming, that the consideration received/accruing to the appellant on sale of her share of rights in immovable property is purportedly less than the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority without appreciating the fact that an adjustment to total income or loss u/s 143(1) canno....