Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1017 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - as per CIT AO not considered issue of sale of immoveable property and calculation of capital gains properly - error in computing Cost of Acquisition - HELD THAT:- In the case under consideration , the asset sold is the plot number 113/15+16/1 along with the hotel standing on it, therefore, the cost of acquisition of the said plot number 113/15+16/1 along with the Hotel needs to be considered as Cost of Acquisition for the purpose of Section 48. For the purpose of section 48, the other two plots having Survey number 113/15+16/2 and 113/15+16/3 Shirdi have no relation to the Asset Sold and hence no relation to the cost of acquisition of the asset sold. Therefore, the pleading of Ld.AR that the plots number 113/15 + 16/2 & 113/15 + 16/3 have been acquired by Government Authorities have no relevance to the calculation of capital gain on sale of plot number 113/15 + 16/1 & Hotel. Assessee in the computation of Capital gain considered total value as mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 9/2/2009 vide which the assessee along with two persons had purchased three commercial NA plots having Survey number 113/15+16/1, 113/15+16/2 and 113/15+16/3 Shirdi along with constructed Hotel. The said sale deed dated 9/2/2009 mentions Rs. 4,00,00,000/- as consideration paid for acquiring three commercial NA plots having Survey number 113/15+16/1, 113/15+16/2 and 113/15+16/3 Shirdi along with the Constructed Hotel. Thus, the consideration Rs. 4,00,00,000/- contains some part paid for two plots 113/15+16/2 and 113/15+16/3. The assessee is not eligible to claim deduction for the amount paid for acquiring the two plots 113/15+16/2 and 113/15+16/3 while calculating Capital Gain for Sale of plot number 113/15+16/1 along with the Hotel. AO has not looked into it. Therefore, qua calculation of Capital Gain the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Assessee has made a claim which is prima facia erroneous. AO has allowed the said erroneous claim. Hence, the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This is not the case where two views are possible. Therefore, the Pr.CIT was right in invoking jurisdiction u/s. 263. Therefore, the order u/s. 263 is upheld. Decided against assessee.
|