TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 30.11.2019 passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(Order No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019- 20/1021375088(1)). 2. Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee in Memo of appeal filed with ITAT, Agra Bench, Agra, including the additional grounds of appeal raised before the Tribunal,reads as under : "1. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case the learned CTT (A) was not justified in not appreciating the fact that the property in question was in possession of tenants, that there was a duress sale & just relied in Assessing Officer's assessment order in which appellants contentions & submission were not considered. The appellant prays that on the basis of additional evidence about improvements/construct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the submissions made by the assessee. The order passed by the NFAC is bad in law, liable to be set aside." Ground No. 6 (Additional legal ground)- "That the AO while computing the long term capital gain has not followed the provisions of sub-Section (2)(b) of Section 50(C) of the Income Tax Act, by which if the value as per circle rate exceeds the actual sale consideration, matter has to be referred to the valuation cell, which the AO has not referred. The long term capital gain computed by the AO is against the provisions of sub-Section (2)(b) of Section 50(C) of the Income Tax Act. The addition made, computing the long term capital gain by the AO, sustained by the NFAC is liable to be deleted." 3. Brief facts of the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er computed the income chargeable to tax as under: a). Full value of consideration of the all properties sold = 49,66,681. (b). Cost of acquisition (assessee has not provided any details in this regard the value of transfer is being taken/mentioned as per sale deeds) = 4,22,170/- (c). Cost of improvement (assessee has not provided any details in this regard) = NIL (d). Capital gain = [(a-b)-c] = [(49,66,681- 4,22,170) = 45,44,511/- 3.1 The Assessing Officer also observed that the value of property sold (share of assessee) as per Stamp Valuation Authority is Rs. 49,66,681/-, whereas the assessee has adopted Rs. 22,50,000/-. The AO made additions on account of under reported the value of Rs. 27,16,681/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which the assessee was having share), but all the properties sold were not considered by the AO for computing income chargeable to tax. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has now filed evidences for purchase of property as well for sale of properties, which could not be filed before the authorities below. These are additional evidences filed for the first time before the Tribunal, and the prayers were made to admit the same. It was submitted that in this case proper enquiry/verifications are required as even the properties sold (share of the assessee in the properties sold) were not considered by the AO in proper perspective, and it requires proper enquiry/verification by the AO. The prayers were also made to set aside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is an individual. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing limited scrutiny under CASS on the reason "capital gains/loss on sale of property". Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee participated in the assessment proceedings at the fag end when the assessment was getting time barred. The assessee has shown sale of property in the ITR for the assessment year 2017-18 for Rs. 22,50,000/- and claimed benefit u/s. 48 amounting to Rs. 30,10,778/-, showing net capital loss of Rs. 7,60,778/-. The assessee submitted sale deed of property sold, but could not file documents in support of claim for deduction u/s. 48. Sinc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontested the invocation of section 50C and has prayed that higher stamp duty valuation as adopted by stamp valuation authority as full value of consideration is not justified and matter may be referred to DVO for valuing the property. I have observed that the additional evidences have been filed by the assessee by way of purchase deeds of the properties claimed to be sold by the assessee as also sale deed copies. These evidences could not be filed before the authorities below as the ld. Counsel stated that these being old purchase and sale deeds were not available at the time of assessment, but now the assessee has produced these evidences and prayers are made to set aside the matter back to the Assessing Officer for framing denovo assessme....