9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT(A) is not controverted by ld A.R. of the assessee. Since, the CIT(A) has directed the AO to calculate the capital gains after giving cost inflation index to the assessee, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), which is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, grounds of appeal of the assessee are rejected. - ITA No.331/Ran/2017 - - - Dated:- 29-8-2019 - S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member And Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv For the Revenue : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR) ORDER PER BENCH This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inference was drawn thereby grossly erred in complying with the parameters of the scrutiny guidelines. 2. Facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee alongwith Smt. Brinda Devi(mother of the assessee now deceased) entered into a Development agreement with M/s. Swastik Gautam Developers measuring 4.5 katha of land on 4.2.2010. As per the agreement, the developers after construction of flat/building handed over Flat Nos.1A, 1B 1C and 1D, which comprised entire first floor of the building named as Matri Chhaya . The assessee sold his share (Flat 1C) on 9.11.2013 for a consideration of ₹ 9,10,000/- but the stamp duty authority has assessed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is considered to be the short term capital asset. He also observed that the sale consideration taken as per section 50C of the Act is not objected by the assessee. The share of the assessee alongwith Smt. Brinda Devei is 4.5 katha and 4 katha. As per the development agreement, the assessee was entitled to get 35% of the built up area consisting of complete 1st floor, which comes to 25% of the share, 1 flat in 3rd floor approx. 6.25% of the share and for rest 3.75% consideration @ ₹ 750/- per sq.ft would be given to land lord. Hence, the cost of the flat is taken at ₹ 750/-per. Sq.ft which comes to ₹ 7,31,250/-(₹ 750x975 sq.ft). Therefore, the short term capital gain is apportioned in the same proportion as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... calculation at ₹ 2235/- per sq.ft and the same has been accepted by the department. He also submitted that the registry rate of flat in the month of November, 2013 was ₹ 2502/-sq.ft and as such by no means the cost of acquisition at ₹ 750/- per sq.ft should be taken for just two months back. 7. On the other hand, ld D.R. supported the order of the CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. It is an undisputed fact that assessee alongwith Smt. Brinda Devi (now deceased) entered into a Development agreement with M/s. Swastik Gautam Developers measuring 4.5 katha of land on 4.2.2010. In lieu of such agreement, the assessee was allotted some flats. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the agreement entered into by and between developer and the assessee. Accordingly, the capital gain whether short term or long term depending upon period of holding is chargeable in A.Y. 2010-2011, which has not been taken either by the assessee or charged by the revenue. Hence, the AO resorted to charge the same in the year 2014-15 i.e. the relevant period on which flat was actually acquired and sold giving rise to capital gain. The AO adopted value as per applicable for A.Y. 2010- 2011 taking only cost of construction. Had it not been taken, the assessee s cost is only cost of land which when adopted, there would be higher capital gain. Then value adopted by the AO is justified as on 4.2.2010. The flat has been sold on 19.11.2013 whereas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
