9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. u/s.143 (3) made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant. 2.1 The Ld.CIT has grievously erred in law and on facts in holding that the order of asstt. passed u/s.143(3) on 19.10.2010 by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue so that the proceedings initiated u/s.263 were justified. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.CIT ought not to have revised the order of asstt. passed u/s.143(3) on 19.10.2010 by AO, since it was neither erroneous or prejudicial and AO had passed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s it is seen that the assessee and his family has sold property and received total consideration of Rs. 59,06,350/- on 17/03/2008 out of which assessee's share was 1/6th in the said consideration i.e. Rs. 9,84,390/-. Further on verification of sale deed, it was noticed that the property was purchased on 06/07/1999 and said property was registered by he Sub-Registrar Office, Surat at Sr.No.19852 and that is why it cannot be said that the property was held by the assessee prior to 06.07.1999 because the assessee did not have any legal title in property nor there is any evidence of actual possession before the 06.07.1999. As per explanation (ii) to Sec. 48 of the Act for the purpose of this section "indexed cost of acquisition" means an am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment order. The assessee had claimed that the property in question was acquired by him by way of a Sauda Chithy on 03/07/1980 and subsequently registered in the year 2008. This is mentioned in Para/Page 10 of the Sale Deed - "acquired as per Banakhat on 03/07/1980 paid from the family fund," It is also mentioned in the sale deed that the said plot contained zupadas and for removal of the same amounts paid as per Surat Civil Judge court orders. The contention of assessee was accordingly accepted without supporting for indexation of cost inflation index for the year 1981, while finalizing the assessment. In the same year the assessee has purchased another property valuing to Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lacks only) through a Sauda C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ital gains and correct hands in which it was chargeable. It was mentioned that there was no evidence on record to establish the quantum of cost of acquisition and cost of improvement so that it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was stated by the appellant that property was purchased from joint family funds under an agreement dated 03.07.1980 for Rs. 64,750/- from Manjulaben D/o. Maganlal Narayandas and even possession was also taken. Therefore, the cost of acquisition of the said property should be taken at its FMV as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 1,50,000/- and indexation should be done accordingly. The appellant had also claimed by way of cost of improvement Rs. 3,25,000/- jointly incurred by the family members towards removal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
