9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I A.N. PAHUJA, JJ. Assessee by Shri Ranjan Chopra,AR Revenue by Ms. S. Mohanthy, DR O R D E R A.N.Pahuja:- This appeal filed on 10.01.2012 by the Revenue against an order dated 31.10.2011 of the ld. CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi, raises the following grounds:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the following additions: 1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is justified in directing the AO to take the fair market value of immovable 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sband) and Smt. Sapna Dimri (daughter) as her class one legal heirs. Subsequently, on sale of the share inherited by Shri Bipin Chandra and Smt. Sapna Dimri, the assessee reflected 50% of her share in capital gain on sale of second floor in the aforesaid property at Rs.Rs.3,04,094/- . The working of the capital gain as extracted in the assessment order is as under:- [In Rs.] Sale of 50% shares in above property Rs. 75,00,000 Less: 50% share in cost price of above Property=Rs. 4,22,250/- (As per Valuation report as on 1.4.1981). Indexed cost of above property 422250x551/100 Rs. 23,26,598 Less: b) Cost of improvement of Rs. 62,000/- incurred during F.Y 1989-90 50% share in cost of improvement=31,000/- Indexed cost of improvement 31000x551/172 Rs. 99,308 Rs. 24,25,906 Rs. 50,74,094 Less: Exemption u/s 54 of the Act Rs. 47,70,000 Long term capital gains Rs. 3,04,094 2.1 To a query by the AO, regarding cost of acquisition adopted by the assessee as on 01.04.1981, the assessee submitted revised computation of income, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for FMV as on 1.4.1981. The AR had given a revised computation enclosed to this order for ready reference. The Assessing Officer may verify these figures after giving appellant an opportunity of being heard, before giving appeal effect to this order. Ground of appeal No.2: That the learned Assessing 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 54 of the Income-tax Act on purchase of 1/3rd share in residential Apartment No.802, 8th floor, Block F-1, village Silokhera, Tehsil and District ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 417(Mumbai)(SB);CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan,286 ITR 274(Gauhati) CIT vs. Jagriti Aggarwal,339 ITR 610(P H) and concluded in their decision dated 20.1.12 as under:- 8. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. There is no dispute about the facts that the assessee became owner of the property on the death of his wife who acquired property from her mother. The said property was acquired by her mother before 1.4.1981. U/s 49(1) where the capital asset becomes the property of the assessee under the modes specified therein, the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it as increased by .the cost of any improvement of the asset incurred or borne by the previous owner or the assessee, as the case may be. In the case before us, the previous owner of the property was his wife, who acquired the property by way of inheritance. The said property was purchased by her mother before 1.4.1981. In the case of his wife cost of acquisition will be taken as on 1.4.1981. Therefore, the cost of previous owner in the hands of the assessee will be the cost in the hands of his wife. In v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
