TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d here; A.Y.2013-14 - ITA No. 3752/Chny/2025 Issue Ground Value 1. Income from LTCG - With regard to Land sold at Varadharajapuram Village 5 Rs. 2,05,87,500/- 2. Income from LTCG - With regard to Land sold at Kundrathur Village 6 Rs. 3,18,24,500/- 3. Cost Inflation Index - With regard to Land sold at Varadharajapuram, Kundrathur and Nedungundram Village 7 Rs. 19,60,423/- 4. Brokerage - With regard to Land sold at Varadharajapuram and Kundrathur Village 8 Rs. 10,96,984/ (96,984 + 10,00,000) 5. Income from Other Sources - With regard to sale consideration on account of sale of land situated at Nedungundram Village 9 Rs. 83,16,000/- A.Y.2014-15 - ITA No. 3751/Chny/2025 # Issue Ground Value 1. Income from LTCG - With regard to adoption of Guideline Value of properties situated at Kundrathur 2 to 6 Rs. 10,48,80,600/-(8,36,16,280 + 2,12,64,320) 2. Cost Inflation Index - With regard to sale of properties situated at Kundrathur 7 Rs. 20,87,680/- 3. Brokerage - With regard to sale of properties situated at Kundrathur 8 Rs. 5,53,016/- 4. Cost of Improv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the submissions dated 09.12.2015 before the DVO at page 83 of the same paperbook. The assessee had also requested that if the AO wanted to proceed with the proposal, to first refer the valuation of the land prior to January, 2012 to the valuation cell. However, the AO referred the case to the valuation cell vide his letter dated 22.09.2015 to arrive at the fair market value as on the date of actual sale (i.e.) after 01.04.2012. However, only a preliminary report dated 22.03.2016 was furnished. The assessee placed her objections firstly on the date on which the value was to be arrived at and secondly on the various aspects of valuation. No final valuation report was furnished by the DVO. The AO proceeded to adopt the market value as estimated in this preliminary report, which was at Rs. 3,10,23,500/-, and proceeded to add the differential sum of Rs. 2,05,87,500/- to the assessee's capital gains. 7. Challenging this addition, in the appeal filed before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee again submitted that the agreement to sell the lands having been reached between the assessee's father and Tatia prior to revision of GLV on 01.04.2012, adoption of the GLV after that date was incorrec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO had rightly adopted the value as per the preliminary report. He firstly submitted that the proviso to section 50C of the Act, which provides for adoption of GLV as on date of agreement, prior to date of sale, was inapplicable to the present appeals as both the provisos were introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and the appeals at hand were for the A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014-15. He further supported the orders of the AO and the ld.CIT(A) by stating that there was no agreement between the assessee's father and Tatia. 11. The Ld.AR then brought to our attention, the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vummudi Amarendran - [2020] 429 ITR 97 (Madras), wherein the Jurisdictional Court had held that the proviso to section 50C of the Act being curative and beneficial in nature, having been brought to remove the hardships faced, is retrospective in operation. He thus submitted that the advantage of the proviso to section 50C of the Act was very much applicable to the present case. 12. We have heard the rival submissions perused the documents on record and the orders of the lower authorities along with the judicial precedents relied on. We firstly hold that the benef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e context of Contract and Specific Relief, held that an oral agreement / contract was valid and a decree for specific performance can be granted on the basis of the same. Thus, we agree with the Ld.AR's contention that an oral agreement satisfies the condition of the 1st proviso. 15. Coming to the 2nd proviso, which mandates for payment of consideration or part thereof to be made via banking channels on or before the date of agreement, we observe that the purchaser, Tatia, had duly paid a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- via cheque dated 11.01.2012 of HDFC Bank. 16. From the above, it can be seen that the conditions laid down in the 1st and 2nd provisos to section 50C of the Act have been duly satisfied in the present case. This being the case, the GLV as on the date of agreement has to be taken for the purpose of section 50C of the Act, if any. From the submissions made before the AO, we observe that the GLV of the property prior to 01.04.2012 (i.e.) for the period between 01.08.2007 and 31.03.2012 was Rs. 8.96 per sq. ft. whereas the sale consideration declared by the assessee as per the sale agreements was Rs. 270/- per sq. ft. 17. The AO as well as the DVO had not disputed the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h came to Rs. 328/- per sq. ft. The LTCG from the sale of these lands was declared in her ROI. During the assessment proceedings, the AO proposed to adopt the GLV of the said lands on the date of the written agreement (i.e.) 03.08.2012 at Rs. 8,80,61,943/-. Similar to the land at Varadharajapuram Village, the assessee objected to the same and requested for reference to the DVO. And here also, the DVO submitted only a preliminary valuation report but did not furnish a final valuation. As per the preliminary valuation report, the value of the land was arrived at Rs. 7,52,24,500/-. The AO proceeded to add the difference of Rs. 3,18,24,500/- to the assessee's capital gains. 20. Challenging this addition, in the appeal filed before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee again submitted that the agreement to sell the lands was reached between the assessee's father and the purchasers prior to revision of GLV on 01.04.2012, and thus the adoption of the GLV after the said date was incorrect. However, the ld.CIT(A) rejected the assessee's contention on the same grounds as for the rejection in the case of the lands at Varadharajapuram Village. 21. On appeal to the Tribunal, the Ld.AR took us throu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he AO, more than once the assessee has stated this figure of GLV before 01.04.2012. The Ld.AR submitted that the GLV figures are also available on the Government Website and that the same have been furnished before the AO. Thus, the figure of GLV as on the date of agreement remains uncontroverted. We have no hesitation in accepting the submissions of the assessee in this transaction also and hold that section 50C would not apply to the facts of the case, as the sale price was higher than the GLV. 25. As noted above, a portion of the lands at Kundrathur were sold in the next year (i.e.) the F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to the A.Y. 2014-15, vide 2 agreements dated 13.12.2013. These lands were also sold in pursuance to the oral agreement entered into between the assessee's father and the purchasers. Thus, the benefit of the 1st proviso to section 50C of the Act is also applicable for this year. We thus allow the grounds of appeal on this issue for the A.Y. 2014-15 in ITA No. 3751/Chny/2026 also. 26. The Ld. AR submitted that the grounds relating to the Cost Inflation Index (ground No. 7 in both ITA Nos. 3752/2025 & ITA No. 3751/2025) are not pressed as the ld.CIT(A) had already remande....