9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent ₹ 3,25,000/- jointly incurred by the family members towards removal of slum and hutments on this land during 01.04.1989 to 31.03.1991. On the other hand CIT has stated that the said property was purchased on 06.07.1999 as stated in the sale deed so that the title was acquired on 06.07.1999 and indexation was to be made on the basis of F.Y. 1999-2000 by taking the cost of acquisition at ₹ 50,000/-. We set aside the order of the ld. CIT and remit this matter back to the file of the AO to examine whether appellant was in possession of property on 03/07/1980 or was not. The appellant is also directed to file the relevant documents in support of his contention before the AO and thereafter, matter will be decided by the AO as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) the quantum of share of the appellant in the property sold (ii) the year of acquisition and its indexation (iii) the cost of improvement by way of payment to slums and hutments (iv) refund of ₹ 39 lakhs paid on 18.03.2008 as per sauda chitti due to cancellation of deed were required to be verified. It is, therefore, prayed that the order passed by the CIT may kindly be cancelled. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in this case, return of Income was filed on 29/01/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 3,22,080/- for A.Y. 2008-09. The case was selected for scrutiny as per CASS and consequently the assessment u/s.143(3) was finalized on 19/10/2010 at total assessed Income at ₹ 3,36,730/-. The order passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inflation index for the year in which the asset is transferred bears to the cost inflation for the first year in which the asset was held by the assessee or for the year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1981 whichever is later, In this case, assessee should have considered the computation of indexed cost of acquisition on ₹ 50,000/- for the year 1999-2000 (i.e. 1st year in which the property is held by the assesses.) Cost of acquisition inflation index for 1999-2000 389 Cost of inflation index for 2007-08 (i.e. year in which the asset is transferred) 551 Indexed cost of acquisition (Rs.50000 * 551 * 389) 70,823 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee has purchased another property valuing to ₹ 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lacks only) through a Sauda Chitti which is found on record. The assessee has made a payment of ₹ 39,00,00/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacks only) on 18/03/2008 and as per Sauda Chitti he is to make the remaining payment by 30/06/2009. The assessee has submitted that this agreement to sale did not materlise the amount of ₹ 39,00,000/- was received back by the assessee. The AO had to verify this issues thoroughly. After taking into consideration all submissions, the facts and legal position, in my view the order dated 19/10/2010 passed under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2008-09 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly. The appellant had also claimed by way of cost of improvement ₹ 3,25,000/- jointly incurred by the family members towards removal of slum and hutments on this land during 01.04.1989 to 31.03.1991. On the other hand CIT has stated that the said property was purchased on 06.07.1999 as stated in the sale deed so that the title was acquired on 06.07.1999 and indexation was to be made on the basis of F.Y. 1999-2000 by taking the cost of acquisition at ₹ 50,000/-. 5. We set aside the order of the ld. CIT and remit this matter back to the file of the AO to examine whether appellant was in possession of property on 03/07/1980 or was not. The appellant is also directed to file the relevant documents in support of his contenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
