ORDER

Per Jason P Boaz, Accountant Member

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-4, Bangalore dated 23.12.2017 for Assessment Year 2015-16.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The assessee, an individual, earning income from house property and capital gains, filed her return of income on 30.08.2015 declaring income of Rs.7,37,800/-. The return was processed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and the case was subsequently selected for scrutiny for the Assessment Year 2015-16 to examine “sale consideration of property is less than the value as per stamp authority (as per return) and sale of property as reported in Form 26QB”. The assessment was concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23.11.2017; wherein the assessee’s 1/4^th share in short term capital gain (STCG); arising on sale of property No.30 situated in Sy. No.56 at Kasavanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk for a consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/- by the assessee along with three others vide registered sale deed dated 13.10.2014; was computed at Rs.16,04,096/-, as against Rs.2,79,096/-; by the assessee, by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act; whereby the full value of consideration was adopted as per the prevailing guideline value at Rs.2,03,00,000/-.

2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 23.11.2017 for Assessment Year 2015-16, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)-4, Bangalore, which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 23.12.2017. In this order, the CIT(A) upheld the view of the Assessing Officer (AO) in adopting the stamp duty value/guideline value as the full value of consideration of the property as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act.

3. The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-4, Bangalore dated 20.08.2018 for Assessment Year 2015-16 has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds. Subsequently, the assessee filed concise grounds of appeal which are extracted hereunder and which are to be adjudicated:

1. The order of the learned CIT(A) in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, and weight of evidence, probabilities and circumstances of the case.

2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred while mentioning that the Sale Deed executed and Registered on 13.10.2014 does not contain the details of the agreement to sell and receipt of advance amount, which is entirely against the facts of the case and hence the order passed based on this is incorrect, bad in law and is to be cancelled.

3. The Learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the confirmations filed directly by the purchasers in respect of the purchase consideration paid by them and in the absence of any other contrary evidences, facts and findings , the Learned CIT(A) ought not to have doubted the transaction and allowed the adoption of the stamp duty value as on the date of entering into the Agreement to Sell for the purpose of provisions of Section 50C and on the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to consider various evidences and supporting submitted in support of the genuineness of the transaction and hence the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is not justified and bad in law.

5. The Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in forming the opinion that the "Agreement to Sell" duly entered into by the Appellant and recorded in the Registered Sale deed is an afterthought to overcome the deeming fiction provided in section 50C which is entirely based on misquoted facts and hence the order passed based on such opinion , which is against the facts of the case are not justified and deserves to be annulled.

6. The Learned CIT(A) is not justified in applying the provisions of Section 50C to the Appellants case as the facts and circumstances of the case do not permit applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Honourable Tribunal in the case of Darams