9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by assessee is admitted and the issue is remitted back to the AO for redetermination of the FMV of the flat and garage as on 1.4.1981 after giving assessee reasonable opportunity of hearing – Decided in favour of Assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1946/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2014 - Shri I. P. Bansal, (JM) And Sanjay Arora (AM),JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Prakash Jotwani For the Respondent : Shri S. M. Keshkamat ORDER Per I. P. Bansal, JM: This appeal is filed by the assessee. It is directed against the order passed by ld. CIT(A) dated 10.1.2011 for assessment year 2007-08. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by assessee read as under : On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: a. the ld. CIT(A) erred i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 as basis instead of Financial Year 1981-82 adopted by assessee. Accordingly, AO arrived at an indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.18,45,045/-, against indexed cost computed by assessee of at a sum of Rs.83,01,888/-. In this manner, long term capital gain liable for taxation in the hands of assessee, after giving exemption of investment in REC bonds, was computed at Rs.20,78,577/- against NIL capital gain declared by the assessee. Relying upon the decision of ITAT Mumbai (SB) in the case of DCIT vs. Manjula J Shah, 318 ITR (AT) 417 (SB), the ld. CIT(A) has held that the benefit of indexation is required to be given to the assessee from Financial Year 1981- 82. However, finding that AO had referred the issue of determining fair market value o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted certain sale instances and ld. CIT(A) without specifically discussing the same has held that the value determined by DVO is correct. The ld. AR submitted that assessee has also obtained valuation from Registered Valuer, copy of which is placed at pages 6 to 61 of the paper book. He submitted that on the basis of that valuation, the FMV as on 1.4.1981 has been determined at Rs.14,14,160/-. He submitted that the said valuation is being furnished as an additional evidence and the same may be permitted to be filed as assessee did not get proper opportunity to rebut the report of DVO relied upon by department. He submitted that in the interest of justice the matter should be restored back to the file of AO for re-adjudication of FMV of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
