9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the assessment year 2021-22. 2. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :- 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting cost of construction for the A.Y. 2012-13 without verifying identify, creditworthiness and genuineness of the parties. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting cost of construction for the A.Y. 2019-20 without verifying identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the parties. 3. The appellant reserves right to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal on or before the date of disposal of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a home maker and she filed her return of income declarin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led additional evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the Ld. CIT(A) asked the submissions of the AO but AO did not furnish the requisite remand report, however, AO was given several opportunities. The assessee filed written submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) which are reproduced at pages 14 to 18 of the appellate order. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) after going through the written submissions of the assessee as well as assessment order along with the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: "6.3 The appellant has claimed that she had got residential house under reference constructed partly during the financial year 2012-13 and spent Rs. 1,18,59,481/-Accordingly, she claimed indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 1,78,48,519/- agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year under reference. A perusal of purchase deed shows that the appellant had purchased a bare residential plot whereas she sold a residential house comprising her share in entire basement, ground floor, first floor and approximately 3/4th portion of entire stilt floor of the property under reference along with 77.5% of undivided, indivisible impartible ownership right in the said plot of land measuring 514 sq. yds. Ld. has not controverted the fact that the building was constructed; only debatable issue is the timing of construction, It is evident from the record that the appellant had got the building plan approved by the competent authority in the financial year 2012-13, it means that she was intended to get the building constructed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he basis of the same credit for cost of construction cannot be denied. Therefore, in the light of the facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant's claim of indexed cost of construction in the F.Y. 2012-13 is justified. Hence, Id. AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,78,48,519/- made by him to the Long Term Capital Gain of the appellant. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed. 7.5 As discussed in para no. 4 above this written submission along with other documents furnished by the appellant during the appellate proceedings were forwarded to the Ld. AO asking a remand report and his comments on the acceptability of the additional evidences filed by the appellant. Despite various reminders n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the sale consideration realized by the appellant was against the sale of complete residential building not against the bare residential plot as purchased by her. The cost of construction cannot be nil as it has been held by the Id. AO by disallowing entire amount of cost of construction claimed by the appellant. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that disallowance of Rs. 1.04.50.000/- being costs of construction of the building incurred by the appellant in F.Y. 2019-20 is not justified. Accordingly Id. AO is directed to delete the above addition. 8. Ld. AO has disallowed Rs. 1,50,00,000/- claimed by the appellant as cost of acquisition of the property sold. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had entered 8. into an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llow relief where, construction of house is accepted. 2. CIT Vs. Brijpal Sharma [2009] 178 Taxman 467 (P & H. HC) 3. G.L. Sultania and Anr. V. SEBI (AIR 2007 SC 2172) (SC) 3. Sanjeevi and Co. vs CIT [1966]62 ITR 156(Mad. HC) 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available record. 9. Perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) reveals that the remand report was called out by the appellate authority but the AO was failed to submit the report. The Ld. CIT(A) has examined the issue that the assessee has furnished the valuation report issued by a government approved valuer who estimated the cost of construction in 2012-13 at Rs. 1,28,01,250/-. The assessee also filed the additional evidence before the appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
