Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E ” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI RAJENDRA & SHRI C.N. PRASAD
आदेश / O R D E R
PER C.N. PRASAD, JM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-8, Mumbai dated 09.12.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10.
The assessee has raised the following grounds:
“1) The Commissioner of Income Tax-8 (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] erred in confirming the values of plot nos. 506 and 509 of Rs. 1,59,96,000/- arrived at by the DVO in computing the capital gains. The Appellants submit that since the properties are fully encroached by the protected tenant/ illegal tenants the consideration received by them of Rs.
50,00,000/- represents true market value and pray that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)-4(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the JCIT) be directed to accept the same in computing the capital gains.
Without prejudice to the above the CIT (A) erred in not accepting the Appellants contention that since the value of Rs.46,80,540 determined by the DVO for plot no.509 is less that the value ofRs.87,03,372 computed by the stamp authorities, the same should be adopted in computing capital gains as per section 50C(3) of the Act. The Appellants pray that the JCIT be given suitable directions in the matter”.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submits that ground No. 1 regarding confirming the values of the plot No. 506 and 509 arrived at by the DVO in computing the capital gains is not pressed. Therefore, this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed.
However coming to the alternative ground, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the value of Plot No. 509 determined by the Stamp authorities is less than the value computed by DVO and therefore, the value as per stamp authorities should be adopted in computing capital gains as per the provisions of Sec. 50C(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding this issue in the light of the provisions of Sec. 50C(3) of the Act.
On a query from the Bench to the Ld. Departmental Representative whether the matter should go back to the Assessing Officer to decide in view of the provisions of Sec. 50C(3), he has no serious objection.