9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. AO has not made any efforts to get the information about the Circle rate of the immovable property as on 01.04.1981. Under these given facts and circumstances, where fair market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 as calculated by the Registered Valuer has been accepted by the AO and there being no other evidence of the fair market value of property as on 01.04.1981, we are inclined to hold in favour of the assessee observing that considering the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 5,00,370/- (adopted by AO), the indexed cost of acquisition would be Rs. 54,09,000/-, and since it is higher than the sale consideration, it would result into a long-term capital loss. Therefore, we set aside the finding of CIT(Appeals) and delete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 was taken at Rs. 10,00,740/- . The ld. Assessing Officer noticed that the cost of property has been computed by Registered Valuer on the reverse method of indexation and practically the sale consideration and indexed cost of acquisition are the same. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with this calculation and in absence of Circle rate of the said property as on 01.04.1981, he estimated the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 5,00,370/- and made an addition for long-term capital gain at Rs. 44,99,630/- and the income assessed at Rs. 48,45,690/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and failed to succeed. The ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition observing as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof as on 01.04.1981. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and not allowed . 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions filed before the lower authorities as well as paper book containing 64 pages and further stated that the ld. Assessing Officer had not given the benefit of indexation on the cost of immovable property considered by him. He submitted that if indexed cost of acquisition is calculated, then there will be no long-term capital gain would remain to be added in the hands of assessee. 6. On the other hand, ld. D.R. vehemently argued supporting the order of lower authorities. 7. We have heard the riva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivided by 100 x 1081), the index cost of acquisition would work out at Rs. 54,09,000/-, which is more than the sale consideration. The ld. Assessing Officer has nowhere disputed the sale consideration. Even ld. CIT(Appeals) has also adopted the same analogy and even he has considered the cost of acquisition at Rs. 5,00,370/- , but again no benefit of indexation has been given. Ld. Assessing Officer has observed in page 4 of the assessment order that the assessee has wrongly considered the amount at Rs. 54,09,355/- (i.e. 50% of Rs. 1,08,17,750/-) instead of Rs. 5,00,370/- (i.e. 50% of Rs. 10,00,740/-). Ld. Assessing Officer has himself considered the cost of acquisition at Rs. 5,00,370/- based on the valuation report by Registered Valuer, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
