9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings as ‘revision’ or ‘review’. Claims which have been disallowed in the original assessment proceedings cannot be permitted to be re-agitated on the re-assessment proceedings. A matter not agitated in the concluded original assessment proceedings also cannot be permitted to be agitated in the re-assessment proceedings unless relatable to the item sought to be taxed has escaped assessment. Even in cases, where the claims of the assessee during the course of re-assessment proceedings relating to the escaped assessment are accepted, still the allowance has to be limited to the extent to which they reduce the income to that originally assessed. The income for the purpose of re-assessment cannot be reduced from the income originally assessed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in upholding the Long Term Capital Gains of ₹ 67,59,827/-, assessed by the Assessing Officer. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in denying appellant's claim of the indexed cost of acquisition of ₹ 20,40,794/- and deduction u/s.54F of RS.35,00,000/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant had rightfully claimed the additional indexed cost of improvement and additional investments in property while calculating capital gains. 6. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in stating that the additional claim as an afterthought. 3. At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R of the assessee did not press Ground Nos.1 2. Accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration received by the assessee was ₹ 97,51,112/- as compensation for compulsory acquisition of his property by the National Highways Authority of India. In the revised return filed/ the assessee worked out the Long Term Capital Gain at ₹ 42,10,318/- after deducting indexed cost of acquisition of ₹ 20,40,794/- and claiming deduction of 35,00,000/- u/s 54F of the Act as against the original claim of .12,34,770/- and 18,50,000/- respectively as indexed cost of acquisition and deduction u/s 54F. When questioned about it, the AR furnished the working for indexed cost of acquisition at ₹ 20,40,794/-. He also stated that the assessee carried out improvements to the house property during the year 1994, 1996 1999 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal Gain at 67,59,827/- against the admitted LTCG of 42,10,318/-. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer against which the assessee is in appeal. 5. The ld. AR submitted that inadvertently the assessee declared lower capital gain by showing less sales consideration and also the assessee omitted to claim cost of improvement as well as exact amount of deduction u/s 54F. When he came to know about the correct position regarding receipt of compensation, he offered the same for taxation and also claimed properly the cost of improvement and deduction u/s 54F in respect of the investment made in the new asset. According to him, the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here the claims of the assessee during the course of re-assessment proceedings relating to the escaped assessment are accepted, still the allowance has to be limited to the extent to which they reduce the income to that originally assessed. The income for the purpose of re-assessment cannot be reduced from the income originally assessed. Being so, in our opinion, the claim of the assessee with regard to the cost of improvement and deduction u/s 54F are relating to the capital asset which is subject to tax in the reassessment proceedings is justified. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to consider the plea of the assessee in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (supra) and deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
