9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of Rs.17,50,000/- and documentation charges of Rs.1,90,000/- as cost of improvement as same is allowable expenses. It be so held now. 3. Ld.CIT(A) ought to have allowed all cost incurred by appellant for purchase of new property while determining exemption u/s.54 of the Act as section prescribes purchase or construction of new assets and appellant purchased independent bungalows and incurred construction and other expenses which is considered as purchase of assets as mentioned in the section. Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the submission of the appellant and ought to have allow the claim of the appellant. It be so held now. 4. The order passed by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is illegal and bad in law and required to quashed. 5. Charging of Interest u/s.234B is unjustifiable. 6. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) is unjustifiable. 3. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 29,27,396/- on account of re-computation of capital gain. 4. The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of job work and commission and also deriving income from capital gain and other sources. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Rs.25,91,000/- [as per (A) above] Long Term Capital Gain to be taxed Rs.29,27,396/- Considering the above chart, "Long Term Capital Gain" requires to be charges for Rs.29,27,396/-. "Long Term Capital Gain" considered for Rs.29,27,396/- and added to the total income. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A, who confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing as under: 3.4 I have carefully considered the assessment order, ground of appeal, submission made by the appellant and material available on record. It is seen that the appellant sold one property jointly held, having 50% share, for Rs.1,90,00,000/- and got Rs.95 lakhs. It is seen that after considering all documents and material available on record, the A O calculated 50% share of the appellant at Rs.39,81,604/- in the property allowing cost of acquisition of sold out property after considering land cost and cost of construction at Rs.79,63,208/-and calculated long term capital gain in the hand of the appellant at Rs.55,18,396/-. 3.5. The AO further considered the investment made by the appellant for the purchase of new property and after allowing the stamp duty, reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be treated indifferently. 9. On the other hand the learned DR before us submitted that in case of co-owner namely Shri Shri Yogesh N Patel, no scrutiny assessment was taken. The return of Shri Yogesh N Patel was accepted under section 143(1) of the Act, hence the assessee cannot take the plea for treating him indifferently. In the present case, the assessee was given full opportunity before making addition. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 10. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The AO, reworked value of capital gain and exemption claimed under section 54 of the Act by disallowing certain items from the cost of acquisition. We note that property was sold and new property was purchased jointly by the assessee with Shri Yogesh N Patel being 50% shareholder and 50% of sale consideration was received by him/ Yogesh N Patel. The assessee has placed on record copy of application dated 22-12-2011 along with the copy of return of income with computation of total income of his co-owner who declared similar capital gain and claimed similar exemption. The return of the co-owner has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y as per stamp duty valuation was determined at Rs. 4,09,01,000/-. The assessee has not declared Capital Gain as he has not filed Return of Income for AY 2009-10 . The said property was inherited by the assessee. The assessee has submitted valuation report of the property from Govt. Approved Valuer who has arrived value of property at Rs. 66,61,020 as on 1-4-1981. The value of the assessee's share comes to Rs. 4,16,314. Indexed cost as per section 48 of the Act is worked out at Rs. 24,22,947/-. As per stamp duty authority the assessee's share being 6.25% of sale value in the property comes to Rs. 25,56,310/-. Thus Capital Gain comes to Rs. 1,33,363/-, which was taxable in the hands of the assessee. The Capital Gain of Rs. 1,33,363 has now been shown by the assessee in the Return of Income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the assessee has not declared suo moto Long Term Capital Gain as he has not filed return of Income. The assessee has consciously not filed return of income to avoid payment of tax. Therefore, Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated on this issue for concealment of income." 10. We have noted that identical worded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
