Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1101 - AT - Income TaxLong term capital gain of the assessee - determination of FMV - property purchased prior to 1981 - Held that:- CIT(A) correctly held that he was convinced with the argument of AR of the assessee that the property was purchased prior to 1981, therefore, deduction of fair market value as on 01/04/1981 and benefit of indexation should be allowed. This was not done by the AO in the Assessment Order as the Order was passed ex-parte and the assessee did not supply any information in this regard. The value of the property as on 01/04/1981 is valued by the Chartered Valuer at ₹ 3,79,000/-. The AO has not challenged the valuation in his Remand Report and has submitted to consider the case on merits. Considering the value of the property in 1981 at ₹ 3,79,000/- based on Valuer's Report, the indexed cost comes to ₹ 22,05,780/-. Accordingly he was correct to held that the assessee was entitled for deduction of ₹ 22,05,780/- u/s.48 of the Act and, therefore, reworked the long term capital gain on sale of above property at ₹ 43,67,720/- in place of 65,73,500/- and allowed relief of ₹ 22,05,780/- to the assessee. - Decided against revenue Unexplained cash deposits - Held that:- Claim of the appellant that he and his mother were having savings since past years out of known sources cannot be rejected in toto. It is seen that the documentary evidences have been filed showing sale of agricultural land at ₹ 28,57,102/-. The claim of the appellant is that entire deposit of ₹ 47,77,500/- worked-out by the AO is out of past savings, in the absence of any direct evidence filed by the appellant with regard to savings utilized by him for aforesaid deposits into bank, thus have no alternative but to estimate his savings available with him and his mother. Ends of justice would meet if the accumulated savings of the appellant and his mother is taken at ₹ 20,00,000/-which could have been available with them for deposits into the bank. DR though relied on the order of AO but could not point out any specific error in the above quoted order of CIT(A). - Decided against revenue
|