9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doned and appeal is admitted. 3. Grievance raised by the Revenue is two-fold. First is that CIT(Appeals) accepted the value of property as on 1.4.1981 as claimed by the assessee for computation of capital gains. Second grievance is that CIT(Appeals) allowed deduction of ₹ 3.5 lakhs under Section 54 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 4. Facts apropos are that sold a house property for a sum of ₹ 55 lakhs during the previous year relevant to impugned assessment year. Long term capital gains worked out by the assessee was ₹ 31,49,300/-. The entire amount was claimed exempt under Section 54 of the Act. For working out the long term capital gains, assessee considered fair market value as on 1.4.81 at S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it was a heritage property, declared by Government of Puducherry and calendar of 2007, proved this status. Despite guideline value of property being only ₹ 33,03,000/-, it was sold for ₹ 55 lakhs, which pointed out the significance of the location. Insofar as disallowance claimed under Section 54 was concerned, assessee submitted that the delay in making the deposit in Capital Gain Account Scheme was condoned by CBDT on 22.1.2010 through an order passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. According to him, Assessing Officer himself had revised the order allowing the claim under Section 54 for the sum of ₹ 28 lakhs deposited in the Capital Gain Account Scheme. CIT(Appeals) was appreciative of these contentions. Accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . strongly supported the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). 8. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. Insofar as the issue relating to deduction under Section 54 of the Act on the deposit made by the assessee in Capital Gain Account, there is no dispute that CBDT had given condonation for delay. 9. This leaves us with the only issue of fixation of fair market value as on 1.4.1981 for the property sold by the assessee. Assessee had taken value on 1.4.81 at ₹ 6,17,000/- and the work-out was as under:- For land 5000 sq.ft. x ₹ 75/- = ₹ 3,75,000/- For building 2420 sq.ft. x ₹ 100/- = ₹ 2,42,000/- TOTAL = ₹ 6,17,000/- As against this, Assessing Officer had considered a sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 1957. The said Rule 1BB, as it stood then, read as under:- "Valuation of house 1BB. (1) For the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 7, the value of a house which is wholly or mainly used for residential purposes shall be the aggregate of the following amounts, namely:- (a) the amount arrived at by multiplying the net maintainable rent in respect of the part of the house used for residential purposes by the fraction 10/8; and (b) the amount arrived at by multiplying the net maintainable rent in respect of the remaining part of the house, if any, by the fraction 100/9 : Provided that in relation to a house which is built on leasehold land, this sub-rule shall have effect as if for the fraction 100/8 in clause (a) or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
