9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 971X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed by the assessee. We restore ground Nos. 1 and 2 of grounds of appeal of the Revenue to the file of the AO with a direction for de novo adjudication of cost of improvement claimed by the assessee. Claim of the assessee of cost of improvement - CIT-A held inherited property cost of acquisition as well as the cost of improvement by the previous owner of a capital asset the indexation shall be allowed during the year of acquisition or improvement by the previous owner or the year of inheritance by the person, who sold the property - HELD THAT:- Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjula J. Shah[ 2011 (10) TMI 406 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] affirmed the view of the Tribunal in holding that while computing the capital gains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. In so far as ground No. 1 is concerned, the ld. DR submits that the assessee has furnished additional evidence before the ld. CIT (Appeals) and the same were admitted without giving an opportunity to he Assessing Officer to go through the additional evidence furnished by the assessee in respect of cost of improvement made by the assessee. The additional evidence contains copies of cost of improvement year-wise. 4. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel submits that assessee has not filed additional evidence before the ld. CIT (Appeals) and the ld. CIT (Appeals) suo moto enquired directly by issue of notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and the architect/interior designer responded to the notice issued by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits that in the case of the assessee the property was acquired by assessee s mother in the year 1969 and after her demise in 2013 her share of property was inherited by the assessee. The ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjula J. Shah [(2013) 355 ITR 474] and the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Arun Shungloo Trust Vs. CIT in ITA. No. 116/2011 [2012 (2) (TMI) 259 in support of his argument. 7. The ld. DR placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 8. We observe that the ld. CIT (Appeals) held that in the case of inherited property cost of acquisition as well as the cost of improvement by the previous owner of a capital asset the indexation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
