9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s.143(3) of the Act on 19-02- 2016. The grounds taken by the assessee read as under: 1. For that the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards long term capital gains. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the sale consideration receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was rejected on 02.12.2016. The assessee filed revision petition u/s 264 on 15.07.2017 against rejection of rectification application. However, as per legal advice, the revision was withdrawn on 27.03.2018 and the assessee was advised to file further appeal against first appellate order before Tribunal. Since the assessee was residing outside India, the formalities were completed with delay and the appeal was finally filed on 03.05.2018. Under these circumstances, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was pursuing alternative remedy. The Ld. Sr. DR opposed condonation of delay on the ground that it was only after the rejection of application u/s 264, the assessee though it fit to prefer further appeal. Having considered the pleadings made in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h. Accordingly, the gains were computed by the owners in the following manner: - Particulars Mrs. Sarada Mrs. Mini MrK.Gopala Menon Pillai Krishnan Sale consideration Cash 75,00,000 75,00,000 75,00,000 Flat Value (4400 sq.ft. Rs.10000 Guideline value 2,20,00,000 2,20,00,000 Total 2,95,00,000 2,95,00,000 75,00,000 Less: Indexed Cost 3,35,776 3,35,776 3,35,776 Long Term Capital Gains 2,91,64,224 2,91,64,224 71,64,224 Invested in Bldg. 2,20,00,000 2,20,00,000 21,64,228 Invested in Bonds 54EC 50,00,000 50,00,000 50,00,000 Expected cost in Interior 13,20,000 13,20,000 --- Taxable LTCG 8,44,224 8,44,224 --- Tax on LTCG 1,73,910 1,73,910 --- Challan N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hare therein would be Rs.182.76 Lacs. The benefit of indexation was allowed only from financial year 2009-10 when the assessee acquired the property. Accordingly, 1/3rd cost of acquisition was worked out at Rs.0.26 Lacs. 4.4 The assessee claimed deduction for investment in specified bonds u/s 54EC for Rs.50 Lacs. The assessee also claimed deduction u/s 54 for Rs.73.66 Lacs which was also allowed. Finally, taxable Long-Term Capital Gains were worked out at Rs.58.83 Lacs. 4.5 The assessee's further appeal stood dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 28.07.2016 wherein Ld. CIT(A) chose to confirm the computations made by Ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 5. The basic fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would show that Ld. AO has adopted sale consideration for this assessee at Rs.295 Lacs and granted deduction u/s 54 to the extent of Rs.220 Lacs for deemed investment in the proposed flat. After making adjustment in cost of acquisition, Ld. AO computed capital gains of Rs.24.73 Lacs. The assessee preferred further appeal to seek adjustment in cost of acquisition as well as cost of improvement which was allowed by ld. first appellate authority vide order dated 23.04.2018. 7. The perusal of assessment framed in the hands of Smt. Sharda Menon u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 31.07.2017 would show that Ld. AO has adopted sale consideration for this assessee at Rs.182.76 Lacs and granted deduction u/s 54 to the extent of Rs.107.76 Lacs for deemed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
