TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the impugned notice having been issued beyond four years from the last date of the relevant assessment year, without appreciating the fact that the case of the assessee pertains to AY 2014-15 and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued in the case of the assessee on 13.03.2019 which is well within four years from the end of the relevant year?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition u/s 50C of the Act of Rs. 5,68,77,945/ on account of LTCG without appreciating the facts of the ease? 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ideration of the properties. Thus, the Assessing Officer held that the provisions of section 50C applies in the case of assessee. After issuing statutory notices, the assessee filed submissions. After going through the submissions, the Assessing Officer pointed out the following points which are as follows:- * The assessee had entered into agreement to sale (Banakhat) of land at Survey No. 597 sarkehej vide agreement No. 406 dated 29/12/2009 with Siraj Nagani and agreement No.333 dated 24.10.2009 with Salim Nagani. The said documents were notiarized with notary. It is important to mention that the documents were only notarized but not registered. No agreement is valid till it is registered with Sub Registrar office. * Furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....meanwhile the land was converted into Non agricultural land on 31/03/2011. * Initially the land was agriculture land, however the same was converted to Non-Agriculture land, therefore the nature of the land changed and so Agreement of sale became invalid." Thus, the Assessing Officer held that the jantry value of the property was fixed at Rs. 4,51,50,000/- and Rs. 5,28,15945/- and accordingly stamp duty paid on the same was Rs. 22,12,500/- and Rs. 25,88,000/- respectively. The purchaser not raised any contention before the revenue/said authorities for the said valuation nor filed any appeal against the same and therefore the Assessing Officer recomputed the long term capital gain thereby making addition of Rs. 5,68,77,945/- as u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supporting evidence has taken a sale consideration value at much lower price than the actual jantry value of the property. The ld. D.R. further submitted that as per the banakhat the value was computed in 2009 but the registration was done in 2013. The DVO's report was ignored by the Assessing Officer but the actual jantry value was taken rightly by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order. 9. The ld. A.R. submitted that in fact the Assessing Officer has referred the matter to the DVO and as per the DVO's report, the calculated capital gain was accepted by the assessee and the assessee has paid long term capital gain on sale of the property. The ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High C....