9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computation of long term capital gains and exemption claimed u/s. 54 of the Act. Hence, we direct the AO to consider the revised statement of total income filed by the assessee, enhancing the computation of long term capital gains from sale of property on the basis of sale consideration received as per sale agreement. Exemption u/s. 54 - We are of the considered view that once, the source of money is not disputed and which has come from sale of property, then any surplus money including additional consideration would also partake character of income generated from that source. This principle is supported by the decision of ITO v. Abraham Varghese Charuvil [ 2017 (4) TMI 1148 - ITAT COCHIN] . In this case, the source of additional m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 16,85,000/- as income from other sources holding the same as not part of Sale consideration. 3. The CIT(A) having taken note of the fact that the sale agreement itself reflects total consideration of ₹ 78,00,000/- ought not to have treated the difference of ₹ 16,85,000/- as income from other sources. 4. The CIT(A) having accepted to the claim of exemption u/s. 54 in toto in respect of the capital gains arising from the subject transfer, erred in treating the sum of ₹ 16,85,000/- as not part of the capital gains. 5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that surplus money arising on sale of an immovable property would partake the character of the Sale consideration. 3. The brief facts of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement of total income considering full value of consideration at ₹ 78 lakhs as per agreement to sale and computed long term capital gains of ₹ 19,29,625/-. The assessee had also claimed exemption u/s. 54 of the Act in respect of purchase of another residential house property at Bangalore, for an amount of ₹ 1,10,21,509/- in support of his arguments, filed certain judicial precedents including the decision of ITAT Coordinate Bench in the case of ITO v. Dr. Koshy George reported in (2009) 317 ITR (AT) 116 (Cochin). The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts has allowed the claim of the assessee towards exemption u/s. 54 of the Act in respect of purchase of house property at Bangalore for ₹ 2,44,625/-. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucated having filed a return of income should have disclosed the actual sale consideration, if he wishes to claim the exemption u/s. 54 of the Act in respect of long term capital gains derived from transfer of property. Since, the assessee has not claimed the benefit in the return of income for the relevant AY, the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) were right in denial of exemption to the assessee and their order should be upheld. 7. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee had sold the property for a consideration of ₹ 78 lakhs. The assessee has computed long term capital gains by adopting sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we direct the AO to consider the revised statement of total income filed by the assessee, enhancing the computation of long term capital gains from sale of property on the basis of sale consideration received as per sale agreement. As regards exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, we are of the considered view that once, the source of money is not disputed and which has come from sale of property, then any surplus money including additional consideration would also partake character of income generated from that source. This principle is supported by the decision of the ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of ITO v. Abraham Varghese Charuvil in ITA No. 30/Coch/2017 dated 26.04.2017. In this case, the source of additional money is not disputed by the AO, be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
