9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property as on 01.04.1981 by placing reliance on the provisions of section 2(47)(vi) of the Income-tax Act which were introduced w.e.f. 01.04.1988 and available to the assessee as on 06.02.1984 when the actual conveyance deed was registered. 2 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is justified in allowing exemption of Rs.64,36,667/- u/s 54 of the Act whereas the assessee had neither purchased the house nor deposited the amount in the capital gain scheme before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1). 3 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is justified in ignoring the specific provisions of section 45(2) of Income-tax Act wherein it is mentioned that "sum depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . yards was executed by the society in favour of Smt. Kamla Devi on 06.02.1984. On her death on 08.03.1986, the said plot was transferred in the name of her two daughters Smt. Rama Rani Mathur and Smt. Prabha Chandra. These two ladies entred into a colloboration agreement on 10.04.1990 with M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (I) Pvt. Ltd. for the construction of a house on the said plot. The ground floor and basement was to be given to the builder whereas 1st floor and 50% of the roof above 2nd floor to Smt. Rama Rani Mathur and the 2nd Floor and 50% of the roof over second floor was given to Smt. Prabha Chandra. Besides, 50% share in the land was given to the builder and 50% to Smt. Rama Rani Mathur and Smt. Prabha Chandra. Smt. Prabha Chandra died o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of 2nd floor-471177 during financial year 1990-91 50% share in cost of construction= 235589 Indexed cost of above is Rs. 235589x551/182 7,13,239 20,46,219 54,53,781 Less: Exemption u/s 54 of the I.T. Act 47,70,000 Long Term Capital Gains 6,83,781" 2.2 However, the AO did not accept the aforesaid computation, the assessee having not submitted either copy of purchase deed dated 06.02.1984 of the land by Smt. Kamla Devi from the society nor copy of collaboration agreement entered into with the builder on 10.04.1990. Accordingly, the AO recomputed the capital gain by adopting cost of acquisition of the land in financial year 1983-84 at Rs.16,204/- and assessee's share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer has erred in rejecting the valuation report of Govt. Approved valuer and thereby assessing the indexed cost of construction at Rs.Rs.85,558/- against Rs.Rs.7,13,239/- claimed by the appellant, which is the indexed FMV of the cost of construction. This rejection is against facts and bad in law and the Assessing Officer may kindly be directed to allow the indexed cost of construction as claimed by the appellant and capital gains computed accordingly. Submissions: Not pressed. No decision required in this ground of appeal. 3.1 As regards exemption u/s 54 of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) concluded as under: "I have considered the assessment order, written submissions and case laws cited by AR. The assessee had claimed exemption u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decided in I.T.A. No.176 of 2011 dated 3.10.2011 in the case of Ms. Jagrati Agrati Agrawal, which is decided in favour of assessee. The P&H case above is squarely covered in assessee's own case. As the assessee had purchased the new asset before filing of return u/s 139, i.e. u/s 139(4), the interpretation by Punjab & Haryana High Court prevails. Therefore, the deduction u/s 54(2) is allowed to the assessee." 4. The Revenue is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid findings of the ld. CIT(A). At the outset, both the parties agreed that the issue is squarely covered by the decision dated 20th January, 2012 of the ITAT in the case of Co-owner late shri Bipin Chandra i.e. father of the assessee in ITA no.4958/D/2011. 5. We have heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese facts, it is clear that the cost of acquisition has to be taken as on 1.4.1981. 9. Now, coming to the cost of indexation, in the case of previous owner, the cost of acquisition is to be as on 1.4.1981, it will be illogical to apply the cost indexation with reference to the date on which the assessee became the owner of the property. Therefore, cost of indexation has to be with effect from 1.4.1981, the date on which the cost of acquisition was taken in the hands of the previous owner. In view of these facts, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of learned CIT(A). Our view is supported by the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Manjula J. Shah (supra). 10. Now, coming to second issue, the Hon'ble Punjab & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
