TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.1981 at ₹ 8 per sq. yard whereas the AO held that another SRO has given the value as on 1.4.1981 at ₹ 2.48 per sq. yard. However, the computation of capital gain on the sale of land had reached finality with the order of the CIT(A) dated 9.2.2008. The assessment order insofar as computation of capital gains is concerned has merged with the order of the CIT(A). Therefore, the Assessing Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in reopening the issue which has merged with the order of the CIT(A). Thus re-assessment order dated 7.12.2009 reopened for re-working the capital gains is without jurisdiction and requires to be set aside. Once the basis for reopening does not survive other additions made in the assessment order also cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome for the AY 2004-05 declaring income of ₹ 65900/- under the head 'other sources' and an amount of ₹ 2,200/- was shown as loss under the head Long Term Capital Gains'. Thereafter, the then Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 143{2} and passed order u/s 143{3} on 23.08.2006, determining the total income at ₹ 2,07,146/-. A part of the said assessed income of ₹ 2,07,146/- is long term capital gain of ₹ 1,41,246/-. While arriving at the capital gain, the then Assessing Officer observed that the indexed cost of the asset has to be worked out based on the date on which the assessee obtained the ownership of the property on partition from the major HUF. But, the then assessing officer has failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2009 and determined the total income at ₹ 16,07,837/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer is of the view that the market value as on 01.04.1981 per sq. yard was ₹ 2.48 and accordingly, worked out the addition of ₹ 1,31,340/-. The AO while doing so, did not consider the certificate of the market value of the property produced by the assessee as issued by the Sub Registrar, Madanapalle, dated 01.08.2003, mentioning that the market value of the land, as on 01.04.1981 was ₹ 8 per sq. yard. 4. The CIT(A) after considering the facts and perusing the record has allowed assessee's contentions on merit by stating as under: 6.2 I have considered the submissions made by the appellant and gone through the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,31,343/- towards difference in indexed cost of acquisition without going into the reason mentioned in the assessment order for the addition. The learned CIT(A) ought to have relied on the certificate of the SRO and sustained the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the fair market value of the land as on 01/04/1981 on the basis of the said certificate. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of cost of improvement in the computation of long term capital gains by stating that the claim which was allowed in the original assessment order cannot be disallowed in the reassessment order. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s reasonable we condone the delay in filing the CO by the assessee and proceed to decide the appeal by Revenue and the CO on merits. 9. The only issue considered by the Assessing Officer is the sale of land. The Assessing Officer has examined in detail with reference to the same in his assessment order. The AO has specifically mentioned as follows: Net consideration received - ₹ 11,08,380 Indexed cost as calculated above - ₹ 46,885 (i) Indexed cost of improvements during 1998-99 - ₹ 6,63,027 (ii) Indexed cost of improvements during 1999-2000 - ₹ 2,57,222 Long term capital gains - ₹ 1,41,246 10. The above issue was subject matter of appeal as regards the year from which the indexation has to be ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at ₹ 8 per sq. yard whereas the AO held that another SRO has given the value as on 1.4.1981 at ₹ 2.48 per sq. yard. However, the computation of capital gain on the sale of land had reached finality with the order of the CIT(A) dated 9.2.2008. 14. The assessment order insofar as computation of capital gains is concerned has merged with the order of the CIT(A). Therefore, the Assessing Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in reopening the issue which has merged with the order of the CIT(A). 15. We hold that the re-assessment order dated 7.12.2009 reopened for re-working the capital gains is without jurisdiction and requires to be set aside. Once the basis for reopening does not survive other additions made in the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
