9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 803 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Computation of capital gains - Deduction u/s 48 - land vacation expenses - Held that - There is no doubt that assessee has claimed the expenditure as part of cost of improvement and the proportionate expenditure was examined by the AO and allowed. Therefore, the observation of the CIT that AO has not verified all the details cannot be sustained. Moreover, we are unable to understand the view of CIT that the expenditures are not allowable under the provisions of Section 55(1)(b)(2) of the Act. As far as cancellation of development agreement with M/s. GPR Divya Sai Constructions is concerned, Ld. CIT s observation that it is a capital loss and cannot be allowed is surprising. If it is a capital loss, then while computing the capital gains, such loss is certainly allowable and so, no prejudice is caused to the Revenue. - Deduction allowed - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Legitimacy of invoking Section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT). 3. Allowability of expenses claimed as cost of improvements in computation of capital gains. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Proceedings Initiated Under Section 147: The assessee raised additional grounds challenging the proceedings initiated under Section 147, which led to an assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147. However, these additional grounds were withdrawn by the assessee's counsel during the appeal, and hence, they were not considered further. 2. Legitimacy of Invoking Section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT): The CIT invoked Section 263 to set aside the assessment order, claiming that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to verify the cost of improvements claimed by the assessee. The CIT issued a show-cause notice highlighting that certain expenditures allowed as deductions towards improvement were not allowable, leading to the short computation of capital gains. 3. Allowability of Expenses Claimed as Cost of Improvements in Computation of Capital Gains: The assessee contended that the expenses claimed were correctly considered as cost of improvement and provided necessary evidence to the AO during the assessment proceedings. The AO had examined these expenses and allowed them proportionately. The CIT, however, disagreed, stating that the expenses did not qualify as cost of improvements under Section 55(1)(b)(2)(ii) of the Act. The CIT argued that improving the owner's title to the asset is different from improving the asset itself, and thus, certain expenses like cancellation of the development agreement, land vacation expenses, and compromise payments were not allowable. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, found that the AO had indeed verified and allowed the expenses proportionately. The Tribunal noted that the expenses incurred for the cancellation of the development agreement, land vacation, and compromise payments were part of the transaction for new development and thus constituted cost of improvement. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including those from the Bombay and Madras High Courts, which supported the allowance of such expenses as cost of improvement. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's order was not erroneous and that the CIT's invocation of Section 263 was based on a difference of opinion rather than any substantial error. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order under Section 263 and restored the AO's order. Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order of the AO was restored, with the Tribunal finding no error in the AO's assessment. The Tribunal held that the expenses claimed as cost of improvements were rightly allowed by the AO after due examination, and the CIT's differing opinion could not justify invoking Section 263.
|
