Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR
सुनवाई क� तार�ख /Date of Hearing : 19.05.2016 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 28-07-2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member
This appeal, filed by the assessee, being 3rd December, 2012 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”), for the assessment year 2009-10, the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) arising from the assessment order dated 23rd December, 2011 passed by the learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called “the AO”) u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter called “the Act”).
ITA 1180/Mum/2013 2
The revised and consolidated grounds of appeal raised by the assessee filed with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the Tribunal”) read as under:-
“1. The Learned CIT (A) erred in law, facts and circumstances of the case by directing the sale of agricultural land to be assessed u/s 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under a new source and further erred in applying section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as assessed by the Learned Assessing Officer.
2. The Learned CIT (A) erred in law, facts and circumstances of the case by directing the sale of agricultural land to be assessed u/s 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further erred applying section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the pretext of enhancement u/s 251(1)(a) r.w.s. 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 where in fact there was a reduction in tax liability rendering such enhancement notice and the direction bad in law.
Without prejudice to Ground no. 1 & 2:
3. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law, facts and in circumstances of the case by treating the sale of Agricultural land at village Kunenama, Pune as sale of Capital Asset [non- agricultural land] and directing the Learned Assessing Officer to tax the same as Long Term Capital Gains.
4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law, facts and circumstances by directing the Learned Assessing Officer to adopt the Sale Value at Rs.2,09,28,000 [appellant's share Rs 28,33,651] instead of the sale value as per agreement at Rs. 72,00,000 [appellant's share Rs. 9,75,000] ignoring that the said patch of Agricultural land is marked as a forest land and incapable to being used for commercial and non- agricultural purposes and also ignoring the various defects in the land.
The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law, facts and circumstances of the case by adopting the enhanced value of Rs. 2,09,28,000 instead of the value adopted by stamp duty authority of Rs. 1,77,12,000 in violation of subsection 3 of section 50C of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law, facts and circumstances of the case by confirming the levy of interest u/s. 234A, 234B & 234C, as applicable.
ITA 1180/Mum/2013 3
The Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law & facts by confirming the initiation of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of IT Act, 1961.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has received income from salary, income from house property, income from business and profession and income from other sources. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act, it was observed by the A.O. that the assessee has claimed exemption of claim of profit on sale of agricultural land. The assessee was asked to produce the documents to explain exemption of claim of profit on sale of agricultural land. A letter to DVO was sent by the A.O. on 17th November, 2011 to determine the fair market value of the property located at Village Kunenama, Pune , as the fair market value as revealed as per stamp duty valuation authority was Rs. 1,77,12,000/- for the total part of the asset. The assessee has claimed the part amount received by his mother Mrs Annet Bulchandani. A letter dated 14th December, 2011 was also sent to Talathi, Village Kunenama, Pune to verify the details and whether the said property fulfills the conditions of agricultural land. The assessee submitted before the A.O. , a letter from Advocate Ashwin Gupta who had given the opinion on fair market value and letter received from Mr. Jimmy Mistry, the purchaser who had expressed certain reservations and had earlier offered Rs. 50 lacs for the said land and the letter from Talathi, Pune.
On verification of the sale agreement of the said land, it was observed by the AO that the agricultural land situated at Pune was not in the assessee’s name but it was his mother’s name and hence the assessee was asked to explain as to why the income claimed exempt as profit on sale of agricultural land should not be taxed u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee submitted that the assessee had purchase the said land along with three others and at the time of purchase, the assessee was only fifteen years of age and since he has not ITA 1180/Mum/2013 4 attained contractual age, the assessee’s mother acted as his natural guardian. The asset was purchased in the year 1987 and has been consistently reflected in the balance sheet by the assessee and it was never reflected in the balance sheet of assessee’s mother. The copies of the Balance Sheets and the purchase documents were brought on record. Scrutiny assessments were also framed by Revenue u/s 143(3) of the Act in the case of the assessee for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 , and in the case of assessee’s mother for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10. The assessee submitted that the sale of agricultural land and the exempt capital gain was correctly reflected in the tax return of the assessee.
The A.O., however, rejected the contentions of the assessee as the property indicated the name of mother of the assessee and other persons both in the purchase and sale agreement and the name of the assessee is not indicated for the said property in both the sale and purchased documents. The assessee is not able to prove the ownership, genuineness and correctness for the income received. Subject to reply awaited from the DVO and Talathi, Pune, the A.O. accordingly valued the proportionate share with reference to the document of sale agreement filed by the assessee and claimed exempt that portion of the value which was in the name of mother of the assessee i.e. Rs. 23,98,500/- which was added to the total income of the assessee as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Act vide assessment order dated 23rd December, 2011 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act for which no satisfactory explanation has been given by the assessee with respect to nature and source of the income.
Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 23-12-2011 passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) of the Act , the assessee filed first appeal before the learned CIT(A).
ITA 1180/Mum/2013 5
5. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee has purchased the agricultural land on 15th December, 1987 for an amount of Rs. 7,000/- along with three others, the details of which are as under:- Land co-owners Percentage of holding. Annette Bulchandani 13.5417% Sameer Bulchandani 13.5417% Ms. Janeen D. 41.67% Cambatta Ms. Nitee Merchant 31.25% The assessee submitted that the land was sold on 2nd December, 2009 at a total sale price of Rs. 72 lacs and the assessee’s share was 13.54% i.e. Rs. 9,75,000/- ( held in the name of mother Mrs. Annette Bulchandani). The assessee submitted that he was minor when the said land was acquired in 1987 and the mother acted on his behalf as a natural guardian for the purchase of the said agricultural land. The payment was made by the assessee in 1987 and possession was held by the assessee. The said agricultural land was declared as a private forest land in 2008 as is evidenced by 7/12 extract attached to the sale deed. Since the agricultural land was declared as a forest land, no commercial activity could take place and generally trees were grown so as to increase the green cover and protect the environment. The mother’s name continued in the official records till the transfer of the said land. The assessee reiterated the submissions whatever were made before the A.O. with regard to his claim that the lands belongs to the assessee , it was an agricultural land and later it was declared as forest land and the land is not within the limits of any municipal town. The A.O. sent the DVO report dated 27th September, 2012 to the ld. CIT(A) , wherein the ld. CIT(A) observed that the alleged land was within a radius of 2 kms of Lonavala Municipality , the DVO had reported that it is not an agricultural land and the DVO valued the said land at Rs. 2,09,28,000/-. Thus, the ld. ITA 1180/Mum/2013 6 CIT(A) observed that the long term capital gain of Rs. 28,26,651/- is to be brought to tax as income under the head capital gains as against the addition of Rs.23,98,500/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) issued enhancement notice to the assessee . The assessee submitted in response to the enhancement notice issued by the learned CIT(A) that the total sale consideration was Rs. 72 lacs and the assessee’s share being 13.5417% comes to Rs. 9,75,000/-. The stamp duty authority had valued the property at Rs. 1,77,12,000/-. The assessee’s share works out to be Rs. 23,98,500/- @13.5417%. The assessee submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that vide notice of enhancement it is proposed to value the property at Rs. 20,928,000/- and the assessee’s share is proposed at Rs. 28,33,651/-. The assessee submitted that as per provisions of Section 50C(3) of the Act , if the value as adopted by DVO exceed stamp duty value as adopted by stamp duty valuation authorities, the value as determined by stamp duty authorities shall be adopted. The assessee also submitted that the indexed cost should be taken while computing the capital gain which works out to Rs. 29,493/- instead of Rs. 7000/-. The assessee submitted that the land is not situated under two kms from municipal limit of Lonavala municipality as stated by DVO but it is situated around 8 kms from Lonavala village which is certified by Talati. The land was marked as forest land with low commercial value whereas the valuation officer stated that the said land is not agricultural land, which is not correct and the agricultural land can be marked as forest land under the Maharashtra Private Forests(Acquisition) Act, 1975. The sales instances relied upon by the valuation officer were not marked as forest land with low commercial value, therefore, are not comparable. The assessee also submitted that sales instances relied upon by the DVO was never submitted to the assessee despite request made by the assessee. The assessee submitted that the DVO did not visited the site before giving valuation report. The assessee also submitted that there are several defects in the land like it is forest land, no access etc and hence the best method is the price fixed ITA 1180/Mum/2013 7 between willing buyer and willing seller. Thus, the assessee contended before the learned CIT(A) that the land is agricultural land and no capital gains is attracted as per the Act The ld. CIT(A) observed that the land was purchased on 15h December, 1987 in the name of assessee’s mother. The said land was considered as an asset of the assessee and it was shown as assessee’s assets in the income tax records, hence, the learned CIT(A) held that the land belongs to the assessee and not to assessee’s mother.
The ld. CIT(A) observed from the DVO report that the land is within the radius of 2 kms from the Lonavala Municipality and hence it is a capital asset in view of section 2(14) of the Act. Further, there was no evidence brought on record by the assessee to show that any agricultural operations were actually carried out in the land. The ld. CIT(A) accordingly held that the land is not an agricultural land and is a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act. The DVO valued the cost of land at Rs. 2,09,28,000/- and the assessee’s share comes to Rs. 28,33,651/- and the ld. CIT(A) directed the A.O. to take Rs. 28,33,651/- as the full value of consideration for transfer of land in view of provisions of Section 50C(3) of the Act. The A.O. was also directed to take Rs. 7000/- as cost of acquisition on 15h December, 1987 and compute the indexed cost of acquisition and compute the capital gain accordingly as per provisions of section 48 of the Act to compute capital gains under the head income from capital gains and the addition made u/s 68 of the Act was directed by the learned CIT(A) to be deleted vide appellate orders dated 03-12-2012 passed by the learned CIT(A).
6.Aggrieved by the appellate order dated 03-12-2012 by the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal.
ITA 1180/Mum/2013 8
7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated its submissions as were made before the authorities below. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that during the relevant previous year the assessee has sold the agricultural land which was declared as forest land under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975. It is submitted that the addition to the tune of Rs. 23,98,500/- have been made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act, while the ld. CIT(A) has now brought to tax income under the head long term capital gains by computing Rs. 28,33651/- as full value of consideration based on DVO report. The ld. Counsel drew our attention to the order of the authorities below and submitted that the A.O. has made reference to the DVO for valuing the property. The stamp duty value as determined by stamp duty valuation authorities of the property was Rs. 1,77,12,000/-. The assessee’s share is 13.5417% in the said property. The DVO has valued the property at Rs. 2,09,28,000/- while the actual sale consideration received for the property was only Rs.72,00,000/- . The assessee submitted that if the stamp duty value of the property being land or building or both is higher than actual sale consideration but lower than the value as determined by DVO, then value adopted for stamp duty purposes as determined by stamp duty valuation authorities is to be accepted and not the value of the property as determined by DVO as provided u/s 50C(3) of the Act. He drew our attention to the paper book page 2 which is a certificate issued by Village Kamgar Talathi of village Kunenama, Taluka Mawal, Dist Pune whereby it is certified that the assessee’s land is situated out of the limits of the Municipality of the town Lonavala and is at distance of 8 Kms from town Lonavala. He further drew our attention to paper book page 13 which is deed of conveyance executed by the assessee for sale of the afore-stated land whereby he submitted that the land is referred to as an agricultural land in said deed of conveyance. He also drew our attention to paper book page 24-25 whereby permission was sought from Forest Officer, Pune as the said land was declared reserved forest by Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act ITA 1180/Mum/2013 9 1975. The ld. Counsel also drew our attention to page 21 of paper book which is 7/12 issued for the said land. The ld. Counsel also drew our attention to paper book page 80-94 whereby the statute being The Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 along with circular issued by Government of Maharashtra was placed for reference. He also referred to the Balance Sheet as at 31st March, 2006 and 31st March 2008 of the assessee whereby the said land was duly reflected which is placed at page 50 and 51 of paper book. He also drew our attention to the Balance Sheet of the mother of the assessee as at 31st March 2005, which is placed at paper book page 49 whereby the said land is not being reflected as an asset in her Balance Sheet. The learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessments made u/s 143(3) for the earlier years in the case of the assessee whereby the agriculture income declared by the assessee was accepted by the Revenue in scrutiny assessments. The assessment orders for assessment years 2005-06, 2006- 07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in respect of the assessee and for the assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07 in the case of the mother of the assessee are placed on record vide paper book page No. 52 to 72. The ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the A.O. applied section 68 of the Act by holding the same as cash credit not being satisfactorily explained by the assessee , while the ld. CIT(A) applied section 45 of the Act to bring to tax long term capital gain on sale of the said land. It was submitted that the learned CIT(A) cannot bring new source of income to taxation as the AO made additions u/s 68 of the Act by treating the same as cash credit for which no satisfactory explanation was given by the assessee about the nature and source of the income , while the learned CIT(A) brought the same to taxation as long term capital gains u/s 45 of the Act which is not permissible. The ld. Counsel relied on the full bench decision of Hon’ble Delhi high Court in the case of CIT v. Sardari Lal and Co., 251 ITR 864(Del. HC) to contend that the learned CIT(A) has brought altogether different source of income to tax which is not permissible. It is submitted that the agricultural income earned from the said ITA 1180/Mum/2013 10 land was duly declared in the return of income filed with the Revenue. The valuation made by the DVO cannot be accepted as it is on higher side and the land was forest land having low commercial value and the DVO did not considered these factors affecting valuation of land. The learned counsel submitted that the valuation of stamp duty authority should be accepted. The ld counsel submitted that in any case as per provisions of Section 50C(3) of the Act, valuation as adopted by stamp duty valuation authorities for stamp duty purposes be accepted in cases where the valuation as per DVO is higher than the value as adopted by stamp duty valuation authorities for stamp duty purposes. It was submitted that the ld. CIT(A) enhanced the assessment and assessed the value as per DVO report which is erroneous as per provisions of Section 50C(3) of the Act. The ld. Counsel drew our attention to paper book page 73 whereby the DVO’s report with respect to the said property is placed and submitted that it is a forest land with low commercial value and the same was not considered by the DVO in right perspective. .The ld counsel for the assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Chandni Bhochar reported in (2010) 323 ITR 510(P&H HC) to contend that the value adopted by stamp duty authorities if it is in excess of actual sale consideration also cannot be accepted unless there is positive evidence brought by AO supporting the price adopted by the State Government for the purposes of stamp duty and that the tax-payer has paid anything more than actual consideration as disclosed in the purchase deed.
The ld. D.R. on the other hand submitted that the DVO has given a clear finding on the distance that the said land is only 2 kms from Lonavala municipality and hence the land in question is a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act chargeable to tax on gains arising at the time of transfer. The ld. DR submitted that no new source have been brought to tax by the ld. CIT(A) as it is the same gains from sale of land which is subjected to tax while in the case of Sardari Lal and Company(supra) relied upon by the assessee, altogether ITA 1180/Mum/2013 11 different source of income was brought to tax by learned CIT(A). In the instant case no new source of income has been discovered by learned CIT(A) and it is the same source of gains from sale of land which is subjected to tax by learned CIT(A) as long term capital gains while the AO assessed the same u/s 68 of the Act . The ld DR drew our attention of explanation to Section 251 of the Act whereby the learned CIT(A) is empowered while disposing of an appeal to consider and decide any matter arising out of the proceedings in which the order appealed against was passed . The power of ld. CIT(A) is co-terminus with the power of the A.O. and hence the Ld DR supported the orders of the learned CIT(A). The ld DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
In the rejoinder, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per section 2(14) of the Act, the distance is to be measured from road i.e. road distance is to be determined and since the land is approx 8 kms from town Lonavala as certified by Talati, it cannot be brought to tax.
We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material available on record. We have also gone through the case laws relied on by both the parties. We have observed that the assessee is the owner of the land situated at Survey No. 119, Hissa no. 4, Village Kunenama,Taluka Maval, District Pune,Maharashtra which was acquired by the assessee in the year 1987 of which the assessee is owner to the tune of 13.5417% . The said land was acquired by the assessee when the assessee was a minor for a consideration of Rs. 7000/- which was stated to be paid by the assessee and is reflected in the Balance Sheet of the assessee filed with the Revenue . The said land was shown in the name of mother of the assessee in the purchase as well sale deed of the said land due to the reason stated to be that when the assessee acquired the land in the year 1987, he was minor and the mother acted as natural guardian to execute the purchase deal of the acquisition of the said land and hence the land was stated to be purchased in the name of ITA 1180/Mum/2013 12 mother of the assessee despite the payment of Rs.7000/- being paid by the assessee . The said land was declared and notified in the year 2008 under the category of reserved and private forest under Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act 1975 . After being notified as forest land, only trees are grown to increase green cover and protect the environment. No commercial activity can be carried out in the notified forest land as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act 1975 as well Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980 , except with the approval/permission of Revenue department of the State Government as well of the Central Government . It is an admitted position between both the parties that the land in question is a notified forest land. No evidence is brought on record by the assessee that any permission was sought from the State or Central Government to carry on agricultural activity on the said land. The assessee has submitted that it reflected certain income as agricultural income in the earlier years in the return of income filed with the Revenue which is accepted by the Revenue in scrutiny assessment while what is relevant is that at the time of transfer of the land, the land was agricultural land to get exemption from being treated as capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act and consequentially entitled for exemption from tax under the provisions of the Act , while the fact is that the land is forest land on the date of its sale by the assessee . The assessee is also not able to demonstrate that it holds permission from State and Central government to carry on agricultural operations on the said land on the date of its transfer by sale executed by the assessee and that the agricultural operations were in-fact actually carried on by the assessee in pursuance of the government approvals on the said land when the land was sold. Merely because in the preceding years, the assessee has declared agricultural income which was accepted by the Revenue is not sufficient to declare the land as agricultural land on the date of its transfer by way of sale executed by the assessee to take out of ambit of being capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act more-so the land is now a notified forest land which is ITA 1180/Mum/2013 13 an admitted positions between the rival parties. There is no exemption being given by the Act on realization of the gains on sale of forest land while exemption from the tax is only accorded to gains arising from sale of agricultural land provided other conditions are also met. It is well settled proposition of the law that exemption provisions are to be strictly construed and the primary onus is on the assessee to bring on record cogent evidences to establish that its case falls with in the four corners of exempting provisions of law. Once the assessee establishes its claims for grant of exemption in its favour, then the exemptions provisions are to be liberally construed to give full effect to the exempting provision as mandated by law. The assessee in the instant case failed to bring on record cogent evidences to establish that land under question was an agricultural land at the time of its sale by the assessee on which actual agricultural operations were carried on by the assessee on the date of its transfer. Hence, we hold that the land sold by the assessee was forest land and not an agricultural land and hence the same is capital asset as defined u/s 2(14) of the Act and hence is exigible to capital gain tax. Our view is consistent with the judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Kalpetta Estates Limited v. CIT reported in (1990) 185 ITR 318(Ker.HC). The A.O. brought income arising from sale of the said land to tax as cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the grounds that the assessee is not able to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the income , while the ld. CIT(A) brought to tax the gains arising on transfer of land as long term capital gains u/s 45 of the Act. The reliance placed by the assessee in the case of Sardari Lal & Co. (supra) is erroneous as the learned CIT(A) has not brought to tax an altogether different source of income from the source of income considered by the AO , rather the income arising from the same source i.e. sale of the land is brought to tax by the learned CIT(A) albeit as income under the head ‘income from capital gains’ being long term capital gains on sale of land, instead of treating the said income to be in the nature of cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Thus, with due respect we are unable to agree ITA 1180/Mum/2013 14 with the assessee and hold that ratio of law laid down by the decision of full bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sardari Lal and Company(supra) is not applicable in the instant case as facts are clearly different in the instant case under appeal. Further, we have also noted that before enhancing the assessment , the learned CIT(A) duly issued notice of enhancement vide letter dated 23.10.2012 whereby detailed reasons proposing to enhance the assessment was duly given to the assessee and principles of natural justice as enshrined in the doctrine of audi alteram partem was duly complied with by the learned CIT(A) by putting the assessee to notice about proposed enhancement. The power of learned CIT(A) is co- terminus with the powers of the AO as mandated u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act read with Section 251(2) of the Act and in our considered view, we donot find any infirmity in the action of the learned CIT(A) in proposing enhancing the assessment so far as his powers under the statute are concerned and compliance of principles of natural justice in exercise of the said powers in the instant case. However, as per section 50C of the Act, where the actual sale consideration received or receivable in respect of transfer of land or building or both is lower than the value as adopted for stamp duty purposes by the stamp duty valuation authorities , then value as adopted by stamp duty valuation authorities for stamp duty purposes shall be deemed to be full value of consideration for the purposes of computing capital gains chargeable to tax. As per section 50C(3) of the Act, if the fair market value of the land as computed by DVO is higher than the value as adopted by stamp duty valuation authorities for stamp duty purposes, then value as adopted by stamp duty valuation authorities for stamp duty purposes shall be adopted. The reliance of the assessee on decision of Hon’ble Punjab and High Court in the case of CIT v. Chandni Bhochar(supra) is also misconceived as in the instant case we are concerned with the computation of capital gains arising from sale of land in the hands of the seller and not with the computation of purchase cost in the hands of purchaser of land which was before the Hon’ble ITA 1180/Mum/2013 15 Court in the case of Chandni Bhochar(Supra) and secondly Section 50C of the Act is deeming provision which for the purposes of computing full value of consideration in the case of transfer of land or building or both has stipulated that full value of consideration shall be deemed to be the value as adopted by the stamp duty valuation authorities for stamp duty purposes in case the actual sale consideration is lower than the value adopted by stamp duty authorities for stamp duty purposes . In case the assessee disputes the value as adopted by the stamp duty valuation authorities for stamp duty purposes, the AO is bound to refer the matter to DVO for determining the fair market value of the property and in case DVO valued the fair market value of the property at a value higher than stamp duty value adopted by Stamp duty valuation authorities, then the value adopted for stamp duty by stamp duty valuation authorities shall be taken as full value of consideration for computing capital gains. In our considered view, the value of Rs. 1,77,12,000/- as determined by the stamp duty valuation authorities for stamp duty purposes shall be adopted as full value of consideration for the purposes of Section 48 of the Act for computing long term capital gains in the hands of the assessee due to deeming fiction of Section 50C of the Act, instead of the value of the land of Rs.2,09,28,000/- as determined by the DVO , while on the other hand the actual sale consideration is Rs. 72,00,000/- . The assessee’s share in the land is 13.5417% and hence full value of consideration will work out to Rs. 23,98,500/- which for the purposes of Section 48 of the Act shall be adopted as full value of consideration of sale of land as per provisions of Section 50C of the Act for computing long term capital gains chargeable to tax. This disposes of ground no 1 to 5 raised by the assessee in revised and consolidated grounds filed with the Tribunal. We order accordingly.
ITA 1180/Mum/2013 16
The next ground being ground no. 6 raised by the assessee is with respect to the chargeability of interest u/s 234A , 234B and 234C of the Act which is consequential in nature and does not require separate adjudication by us.
The last ground being ground no 7 is with respect to initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by Revenue against the assessee which is pre-mature at this stage and hence is dismissed as such.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0. 1180/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed as indicated above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th July , 2016. आदेश क� घोषणा खुले �यायालय म� �दनांकः 28-07-2016 को क� गई ।