9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ossible to substitute any value other than the SRO value under Section 50C. I find no merit in assessee’s contentions. Accordingly, the ground is rejected. Disallowance of expenditure on construction of partition walls and toilets - Held that:- As far as development agreement is concerned, it is true that assessee was to get constructed first floor admeasuring 9,000 Sq. Ft., without any internal partition walls. Assessee along with her husband has sold 6,185 Sq. Ft., in the first floor along with undivided share of land and the sale documents do indicate that there were partition walls and toilets. Obviously, these could have been incurred by assessee. Even though, no details could be furnished to the satisfaction of AO/CIT(A), the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ership of the property and assess only that part of the rental income which is to be assessed in assessee’s hands. AO is also directed to give credit accordingly in the respective hands. - I.T.A. No. 553/HYD/2016 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2016 - SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri G. Kalyandas, AR For The Revenue : Shri K.E. Sunil Babu, DR ORDER This is an appeal by assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Hyderabad, dated 27-01-2016. Assessee has raised five grounds, out of which, Ground No.1 5 are general in nature. 2. Briefly stated, assessee is an individual receiving income from rent, Long Term Capital Gain and hire charges. She filed return of income admittin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not having any application to the facts of the case. 3.1. Even though Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions and relied on the above case law, I am of the opinion that AO is correct in invoking the provisions of Section 50C. Assessee either should have objected to the valuation before the SRO or should have objected the valuation before the AO who in turn could have referred it to the Valuation Officer. Since neither of the actions was undertaken by assessee, the provisions of Section 50C are to be applied as such. Eventhough the amount of difference is small; there is no option to the appellate authorities not to ignore the provisions of the Statute. Assessee should have objected to the valuation being adopted u/s. 50C(2). Having not do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have been incurred in Financial Year 2002-03 for additional works was disallowed. 4.1. It was contended by the Ld. Counsel that assessee along with her husband has acquired 500 Sq. Yds., of land at Himayathnagar, Hyderabad in June, 2000, which was given in development to M/s. Sai Pragathi Estates Constructions Pvt. Ltd., along with others. Assessee was to get an amount of 9,000 Sq. Ft., of constructed area and as per the agreement, only barestructure without any partitions or facilities are to be developed. Ld. Counsel referring to the agreement and subsequent sale documents states that assessee got in possession of bare-structure and partitions and provision of toilets were made by assessee way back in Financial Year 2002-03. Sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing provided on the sold property. Considering the above, I am of the view that an amount of ₹ 3 Lakhs can be allowed to assessee towards possible expenditure on development of the property. Accordingly, the grounds are partially allowed. AO is directed to re-work out the capital gains accordingly. Ground : 4.1. Authorities below erred in assessing rental income from Reliance Retail Ltd at ₹ 5,97,400/- against ₹ 2,97,700/-. 4.2 Authorities below ought to have noted that along with her son appellant are joint owner of share in the property and tenant since paid TDS ₹ 1,00,542/- in respect of share and ld AO having assessed share income be directed to allow TDS credit. 5. Ground No. 4 pertai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne son in assessee s hand. Whether the other son is a major or a minor and incomes are offered separately could not be verified. In view of that, I direct the AO to examine the ownership of the property and assess only that part of the rental income which is to be assessed in assessee s hands. AO is also directed to give credit accordingly in the respective hands. With these directions, the issue in Ground No. 4 is restored to the file of the AO to examine the facts and decide afresh. Needless to say that assessee should be given due opportunity. Grounds are considered allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 15th July, 2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
