9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctors including the standard rent, if any as determined under the provisions of Rent Control Act or Municipal Rateable Value of the property for computing the Annual Letting Value. Since no such exercise was carried out, matter restored back Long term capital loss - computation at reduced figure in comparison to computation of assessee - AO denied the claim of expenditure incurred by the assessee on the improvement of the property - Held that:- Since it is not clear from the records that whether the assessee has capitalised the cost of improvement and shown in the balance sheet for the respective assessment years; therefore, in the interest of Justice, we remit this issue to the record of the AO for deciding the same afresh after conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord for condonation of delay. The learned A.R of the assessee has submitted that after receiving the order of the learned CIT(A) by the Chartered Accountant of the assessee, the same was given to one Shri Shri Balakrishna Mohite, who is maintaining the records of appeal matters for taking the photo copy and sending to the assessee's office for filing appeal. However, inadvertently the impugned order of CIT(A) got mixed up with the other papers in the office of Chartered Accountant of the assessee and therefore, the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation. Subsequently, Shri Bakrishna Mohite came across to the impugned order and realise that the appeal against the said order could not be filed. Accordingly, the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. It is settled proposition of law that the Court should take a lenient view on the matter of condonation of delay. However, the explanation and the reason for delay must be bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. The Court should be liberal in construing the sufficient cause and should lean in favour of such party. Whenever substantial Justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, cause of substantial Justice has to be preferred. 5.1 In the case in hand, when the reasons explained by the assessee are not found as malafide or a device to cover up ulterior purpose, then a liberal approach has to be taken for considering the sufficiency of cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee and remained vacant. She has further submitted that even otherwise, the Assessing Officer has not computed the annual letting value as per the provisions of law and the municipal rateable value of the shops has to be taken into consideration. Thus, the learned A.R of the assessee has submitted the annual letting value as estimated by the Assessing Officer is against the settled law on the point. 7.1 On the other hand, the learned D.R has submitted that the Assessing Officer has computed the annual letting value as per the provisions of section 23 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act; therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer is justified. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 8 We have considered the rival su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 290/- against the claim of the assessee at ₹ 16, 66,173/-. 10. We have heard the learned A.R as well as learned D.R and considered the relevant material on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold 2 shops and claimed long term capital loss of ₹ 16, 66,173/-. The assessee has claimed the expenditure incurred towards the property in question as part of cost of acquisition and thereafter took the benefit of indexation of cost while computing the long term capital loss. The Assessing Officer denied the claim of expenditure incurred by the assessee on the improvement of the property. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 10.1 Before us, the learned A.R of the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer for indexation Today, when the property has been sold, assessing officer has -no jurisdiction to disturb that capitalised cost of the property. Today, after 25 years assessing officer cannot disturb the capitalised amount so capitalised 25 years back. I agree with the contention. In law, assessing officer does not have jurisdiction to disturb the earlier years results. This jurisdiction is limited to the current, the previous year under consideration. Therefore if an expenditure had been incurred and capitalised to the cost of the property in any earlier assessment year, assessing officer today does not have jurisdiction to disturb that capitalisation. 11.1 Since it is not clear from the records available before us whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
