9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected the claim on the ground other than the ground taken by the A.O., he ought to have given a specific notice to the assessee in this regard. Therefore, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the issue to the file of the assessing officer to decide it afresh - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.285/Ind/2017 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2018 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri P.D. Nagar, A.R. For The Respondent : Shri Rajiv Jain, D.R. ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A)-I, Indore dated 23.2.2017 pertaining to the assessment y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,52,000/-. It was also noticed that the assessee had purchased one part of this plot on 28.7.2001 for a consideration of ₹ 4,61,102/- and got the second part of the above plot through exchange deed from Smt. Santosh Porwal. The cost of the second part of the plot was ₹ 4,65,000/- to the original owner. It was further noticed that the assessee on the date of transfer of the plot was the owner of one half of the residential house situated at Bhakta Prahalad Nagar, Indore. A part of this house was let out by the assessee and was residing in the balance part. The assessee had invested the said consideration of the plot situated at 328, Usha Nagar Extension, Indore in purchase of residential house No.35, Scheme No.71, Sector-D, Indo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g term capital gain earned by the appellant of ₹ 52,84,183/- on the sale of two plots of land on 12.9.2012 exemption u/s 54F of the Act was disallowed by the A.O. on the ground that the assessee was having more than one residential house. Ld. Counsel submitted that after sale of residential asset, the assessee had purchased a residential house on 22.11.2012 for a sum of ₹ 21,56,000/- and another house in scheme No.71, Sector-D, Indore on 12.7.2013 for a sum of ₹ 1.10 crores. Both the houses were purchased before the due date on filing of return. He submitted that the A.O. considered that at the time of purchase of residential house in scheme No.71, Sector-D, Indore, the assessee was having two residential houses. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section, that is to say,-- a. If the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45; b. If the cost of the new asset is less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45; [ Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where- a. The assessee,-- i. Owns more than one residential house, other than new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or ii. Purchases a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lable in view of the first proviso (a)(ii) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) has noted the fact that the assessee had sold two plots on 16.7.2012 and 12.9.2012 respectively and purchased new asset number (1) on 22.11.2012 and a new asset number (2) a residential house on 12.7.2013. It is not in dispute that the assessee had sold two capital assets on 16.7.2012 and 12.9.2012 and purchased two new assets on two different dates. Undisputedly, both the authorities below have rejected the claim of the assessee on two different grounds. Undisputedly house No.328A was sold on 16.7.2012 for a sum of ₹ 25,88,000/-. The assessee purchased new asset i.e. residential house at Kagdipura, Chhatribagh, Indore on 22.11.2012. Another plot i.e. plot No.328B was s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
