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

....n of income for the A.Y. 2019-20 on 14.07.2019. 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 f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dditional area from the developer." 5.2.2 The fact that the appellant 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 v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....adopted as per 50C for purpose of capital gains has shown at Rs. 1,66,60,000/- only. 5.3.4. Thus the appellant's claim 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rders of the lower authorities. 7. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that based on the information submitted by the assessee before Centralized Processing Centre and the Assessing Officer (CPC) has considered the various informations available on record and proposed the additions u/s. 50C of the Act. After considering the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and submissions of the assessee we are in agreement that the proposed addition u/s. 50C is beyond the mandate u/s. 143(1) and the same can be processed only u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Considering the fact that the issue involved in Section 50C is adoption of stamp duty valuation in place of actual consideration. It is deeming provision wherein assessee, the....