9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the property and also entitled for indexation from 01.04.1981. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the lower authorities in respect of this part of the issue and direct the Assessing Officer to allow indexed-cost of the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 by allowing indexation with reference to 01.04.1981. We find that the additional cost of ₹ 6,00,000/- claimed by the assessee was not accepted by the lower authorities on the ground that evidence in respect of the same was not produced before them. We find that no evidence could either be produced before us. Further, also no details as to how the payments were made in respect of the above alleged renovation expenditure was made was brought on record either before the lower authorities or before us. In absence of the same, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities in respect of this part of the issue. Applicability of Section 50C while claiming deduction u/s 54 - The deeming fiction created by virtue of section 50C in determining ‘capital gain’ from transfer of any long-term capital asset for purpose of section 54F has to be worked out by applying section 48 without imposing section 50C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... termining the capital given on sale of house property. Further, the AR of the assessee submitted that the provisions of section 50C does not apply in the case of the assessee when the assessee takes benefit u/s 54 of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that as the assessee has claimed benefit u/s 54 of the Act, the actual sale consideration stated in the registered documents should be considered as the sale consideration for exempt u/s 54 of the Act. For this, he relied upon the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Gouli Mahadevappa v. ITO, [2011] 128 ITD 503 (Bang.), wherein it was held that the deeming fiction created by virtue of section 50C in determining capital gain from transfer of any longterm capital asset for purpose of section 54F has to be worked out by applying section 48 without imposing section 50C of the Act . Further, the AR of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of ₹ 6 lacs spent for renovation and repairs to the new residential house. He submitted that the renovation and repairs was made to make value addition to the residential house and it was a capital expenditure and therefore, added to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3), the assessee filed a revised calculation of capital gain as under:- Particulars Index Amount Sales Proceeds 632 Rs.1,73,42,754/- (2009-10) Sales consideration received ₹ 1,10,00,000/- Less:- Cost of purchases 17,36,000 valuation on dated 01.04.1981 (17,36,000/- #42; 632/100 Net 100 Rs.1,09,71,520/- ₹ 63,71,234/- Less:- Investment u/s 54 Cost of purchases of new residential house Transaction value 55,00,000/- Stamp duty expenses 4,67,500/- Registration Fee 44,170/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... renovation of new house is not acceptable in absence of proper material. 10. We find that the Assessing Officer observed in the assessment order as under:- From the facts narrated in the sale deed of house property situated at Polo Ground, Udaipur it is noticed that Dr. Mahendra Singh Gambhir father of the assessee purchased a plot admeasuring 13664.6 sq. ft. situated at Polo ground, Udaipur from Udaipur Development authority on 13.09.1969 and constructed a house thereupon. After the death of Dr. Mahendra Singh Gambhir the property devolved amongst his wife Smt. Satwant Kaur w/o Dr. Mahendra Singh and his two sons viz. Shri Dhanvir Singh s/o Dr. Mahendra Singh Gambhir and Shri Parvinder Singh s/o. Dr. Mahendra Singh Gambhir. As per oral agreement the property was divided in three parts amongst the three legal heirs and everyone took the possession of his share. To avoid any dispute in future all the three legal heirs decided to write down the contents of oral agreement on 24.05.1993. Therefore the assessee had shown cost of acquisition at ₹ 44,96,525/- as on 24.05.1993. Subsequently due to dispute the matter went to court and as per order of court assessee got his sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of purchase of new residential house. We find that the additional cost of ₹ 6,00,000/- claimed by the assessee was not accepted by the lower authorities on the ground that evidence in respect of the same was not produced before them. We find that no evidence could either be produced before us. Further, also no details as to how the payments were made in respect of the above alleged renovation expenditure was made was brought on record either before the lower authorities or before us. In absence of the same, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities in respect of this part of the issue. 13. Further, the AR of the assessee also contended before us that while allowing deduction u/s 54 of the Act from Long Term Capital Gain Section 50C is not applicable. The AR of the assessee relied upon the order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Gouli Mahadevappa v. ITO, [2011] 128 ITD 503 (Bang.), 14. We find that the above contention of the AR is devoid of any merit and the decision relied upon is distinguishable and does not support the case of the assessee. In the aforesaid decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
