9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. CIT(A). - Decided against assessee - ITA No. 430/VIZ/2017 - - - Dated:- 5-9-2018 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate For The Department : Shri Deba Kumar Sonawa, CIT DR ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Visakhapatnam, dated 31/03/2017 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee is an individual, not filed return of income. The Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). In pursuance to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has admitted long term capital gain of ₹ 5,05,415/- against the sale of immovable property in Survey No. 39/1, Plot No. 144, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam. The assessee has sold his house property for a sale consideration of ₹ 13,75,000/- on 10/11/2009. The Assessing Officer by invoking section 50C, adopted the sale consideration of ₹ 20.00 lakhs as per SRO value a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indexed cost of construction of compound wall and the cost of improvements as the assessee is not entitled for the same. However, the Assessing Officer has allowed the assessee's claim basing only upon the payment receipts and contract agreement entered into with a mason namely Sri G. Narayana Rao. Hence the assessee's claim of indexed cost of improvements and indexed cost of construction of compound wall of ₹ 13,63,507/- is prima-facie not tenable on facts of the case. 3. For the foregoing reasons, the assessment order dt.23.02.2015 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act for Asst. Year 2010-11 is prima facie erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the same is proposed to be revised u/s.263 of the I.T. Act. 4. In the light of the above, you are hereby requested to show cause as to why the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the I.T. Act, dated 23.02.2015 for the Asst. Year 2010-11 shall not be revised and the income recomputed and determined as per discussions made above. In this regard, your case is posted for hearing on 02.12.2016 at 4.30 P.M. in the chamber of the undersigned at 4th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Dabagardens, Visakhap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , I have demolished compound wall and shed which were constructed on the said land for positive energy to perform the marriage of my only daughter. I totally went in a bad phase after my wife's death. I was totally in a financial crunch and also unable to perform my daughter's marriage. In an urgent need of funds for the purpose of my daughter's marriage and to clear the debts which were taken for the medical treatment of my wife, I sold the property in discussion relating to the said A.Y. for a thrown away price of ₹ 13,75,000/- only. Due to unforeseen situations, the sale of the sad land was made for a lower price. We are unable to find good price in the market as I was under pressure to perform my daughter's marriage. Hence, I have sold the said land for an amount lesser than the SRO value. During the assessment proceedings I have submitted necessary evidence for cost of improvements i.e., contract agreements and other evidences in support of my claim as deduction for determining the long term capital gains. Accordingly I have declared the long term capital gains and paid taxes. I had no intention of concealing the income particulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and also a shed and subsequently, when his wife was expired, on the advice of the well-wishers and Vastu consultants and also with the feeling of sentiment, the assessee has demolished the compound wall and shed, which was constructed in the said land. Subsequently, the property is sold to perform his daughter s marriage. It is submitted that the assessee has filed all the details before the Assessing Officer in respect of cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement. The Assessing Officer after examining the same, allowed the claim of the assessee, therefore the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be said that erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad A Bench in the case of Shri Boda Dinesh Reddy (HUF) vs. DCIT in ITA No. 296/Hyd/2009, by order dated 25/01/2012. 7. Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the order passed by the ld. Commissioner and submitted that on the date of sale, there is no construction is available in the subject matter of the property and therefore, the Assessing Officer wrongly allowed the indexed cost of construction and improvement. Hence, the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
