TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1707
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eassessment order dated 26.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the AO") under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee before us in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 36 read as under: "1. The CIT(A) has wrongly approved the order of AO in which proceeding initiated u/s 148 and consequent assessment made on the appellant u/s 147/143(3) of the IT Act is wrong and bad in law. 2. That without prejudice to the above ground no.1 the CIT(A) has wrongly approved the order of AO in which capital gain tax has wronly charged on the 60% assessee's share of sale of agricultural land at Motu ka bass as said land....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 91,20,000. Against this, the assessee adopted the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 9,86,113 and claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act of Rs. 81,23,341 on account of the investment in plot No. RC-94 at Narayan Vihar (C), Jaipur, acquired in auction from the Jaipur Development Authority for Rs. 91,08,175. 4. The case was reopened under section 148 of the Act and the AO completed the reassessment on 26.12.2017 at a total income of Rs. 1,07,40,020, computing the long term capital gain at Rs. 1,04,82,139. He held the land to be a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act; invoked section 50C of the Act and adopted the share of the assessee in the value assessed by the stamp valuation authority at Rs. 1,14,68,326 in place of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 40 per cent share along with her minor son, the AO had likewise substituted her share of Rs. 76,45,550 out of the stamp duty value of Rs. 1,91,13,876 for her share of Rs. 60,80,000 in the actual consideration, and had declined her claim under section 54F of the Act on the same reasoning. Her case travelled to this Tribunal twice, and in the second round the co-ordinate bench allowed her appeal, holding in paragraph 7 of its order as under: "As per section 54F of the Act, the assessee is only required to have construction on the plot for residential purpose and that condition has been fulfilled by the assessee to construct two rooms with boundary wall and an iron entry gate on said plot which is not disputed either by AO or CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and the same evidence, are treated alike. The finding of the learned CIT(A) that the case is not a covered case therefore cannot be sustained. 10. Nothing has been placed before us to show that the order in Sarita Devi Garg (supra), or the decisions in Om Prakash Goyal (supra) and Gyanchand Batra (supra) followed therein, have been reversed, set aside or stayed by any higher forum. Respectfully following that order, we hold that the deduction under section 54F of the Act cannot be declined on the ground that the plot was of a commercial nature or that the construction raised on it was a godown, and further that the value adopted under section 50C of the Act cannot be imported into the computation of the deduction admissible under secti....