TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 917X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year 1981-82. This was reversed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The second grievance is regarding fair market value adopted as on April 1, 1981 which was at Rs. 45,000 per ground by the assessee originally and later revised by it to Rs. 2.25 lakhs per ground. The Assessing Officer rejected the revision of the fair market value which was done during the proceedings for assessment but the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt such a revised value submitted by the assessee. The short facts apropos are that the assessee had during the relevant previous year sold land and building situated at 13 and 14 Maraikkar Labbai Street, Chennai for a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that such certificate did not mention that it covered the area sold by the assessee and, further according to him, the assessee having not filed any revised return, the original cost of Rs. 45,000 per ground returned, alone could be considered during the proceedings for assessment. Thus, he persisted with the value of Rs. 45,000 per ground as taken by the assessee in his original computation and applied the cost inflation equation by taking index for the assessment year 1992-93 in the denominator. Assailing the above before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee's submissions were that the property was received by him through inheritance and therefore, the cost of acquisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im during the assessment proceedings, especially so since the certificate of the District Registrar submitted in evidence did not mention the area to which it applied. Per contra, the learned authorised representative strongly supported the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and also relied on the Special Bench of this Tribunal in Deputy CIT v. Manjula J. Shah I.T. A. No. 7315/Mum/2007, dated October 16, 2009 (since reported as [2009] 318 ITR (AT) 417 (Mum)). We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders, in so far as the question of the base year of cost index to be considered while computing the indexed cost of acquisition, in relation to an asset which has been acquired through inheritance, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
