9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine brokers before making any disallowance. Addition on account of Dalali paid by the assessee in respect of the property sold by him - Held that:- We find that the assessee has failed to submit the details of cost of construction of second floor of the house except certificate from A.N. Associates and also failed to submit the requisite details for cost of improvement for the assessment year 2004- 05. Since these aspects have not properly examined by the AO, therefore, the same are required to be re-examined in proper manner after affording the reasonable opportunity of being herd. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and produce the concerned contractor for examination of the AO. It may also be pertinent to note t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of Dalali paid by the assessee in respect of the property sold by him. 4 Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee has sold property for a consideration of ₹ 29,00,000/-, which was valued by Stamp Duty Officer at ₹ 35,21,000/-. Therefore, the AO asked to explain as to why sale consideration should not be considered at ₹ 35,21,000/- as against sale consideration of ₹ 29,00,000/-, shown by the assessee as per the provisions of sec 50C of the Act, in response to which the assessee filed revised computation showing sale value at ₹ 35,21,000/- for working out capital gains. However, the assessee has claimed cost of improvement in the year 2003-04 at ₹ 5,80,000/-, cost of Dalali at ₹ 1 la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee has objected the valuation as adopted by the Sub Registrar and also requested to refer the same to the DVO, but the same was not referred and similar arguments were taken as before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee requested that the AO may be directed to adopt the sale consideration as declared by the assessee or direct the AO to refer the matter to the DVO to determine the correct value of the house as sold by the assessee. It was further submitted that the brokerage of ₹ 50,000/- was paid to Shri Manoj Surana and ₹ 50,000/- was paid to Shri Makhan Patidar. The percentage of brokerage calculated on ₹ 29 lakhs comes aroun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of cost of improvement in respect of property sold by her without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submission made before him. 11 Facts apropos of the above grounds are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 7.2.2009 declaring total income of ₹ 2,46,680/- declaring total income of ₹ 2,46,680/-, which was assessed u/s 143(3) on 24.11.2010 at ₹ 9,16,680/- by making addition of ₹ 6,21,000/- due to application of provisions of section 50-C and ₹ 50,000/- disallowance out of brokerage paid on sale of property. Therefore, the ld. CIT vide his order dated 15.03.2013 u/s 263 of the Act has set-aside the issue to the file of the AO regarding the claim of deduction u/s 54F with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 It was contended that the construction of second floor is eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. For this proposition, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance in the case of P. V. Narsimhan, 47 taxmann 89 (Mad) and ACIT vs. Shri Gurmeet Singh, I.T.A.No. 1018/Chd/2010. As regards disallowance of cost of construction expenses the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that there was no reference for disallowance of deduction u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, the AO was not justified in disallowing the same. For this proposition, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee relied on the decision of CIT vs. D.N. Dosani, 280 ITR 275 (Guj) and Shobha Govil vs. Addl. CIT, 35 taxmann. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
