TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he came to the conclusion that the assessee has taken higher value while working out indexation and therefore, he recorded an opinion that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment under Section 147 of the Act. Merely because, he addressed a letter to the Sub-Registrar asking him to furnish the particulars would not lead to the conclusion that on the day he issued notice, he had no material to show that the assessee has over valued the asset. Rightly, the authorities have rejected the said contention and the proceedings initiated is valid and legal and do not suffer from any legal infirmity. Therefore, the first substantial question of law is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Computation of benefit u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statutory provisions. The said reasoning is unsustainable. To that extent, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the Lower authorities require to be set-aside and it is to be held that in arriving at cost of the new asset, ₹ 18 lakhs spent by the assessee for modification, alterations and improvements of the asset acquired is to be taken note of. - Decided in favour of the assessee - ITA No. 232/2013 - - - Dated:- 5-1-2015 - N. Kumar And B. Veerappa,JJ. For the Appellants : Sri R Chandrashekar R, Sri Kashinath Kalmath, Advs. Sri R Rama Murthy, Adv. For the Respondent : Sri K V Aravind, Adv. ORDER The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal holding that only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal in respect of another co-owner in I.T.A. Nos. 425 462/2010. Insofar as the determination of the market value of the property is concerned, the assessee also had claimed benefit of the amounts, which she invested by way of laying marble flooring and re-painting of the house and improving kitchen, constructing compound wall and other additions. The said claim was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that when admittedly, the property, which was purchased by the assessee was habitable, any amounts invested by way of improvement is not liable for the benefit under Section 54F of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the assessee is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee, assailing the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere justified in rejecting the said contentions. Insofar as the improvements carried out by the assessee after acquiring the property is concerned, as the same was not required for making the premises habitable, the authorities were justified in refusing to take into consideration the amount so invested for acquisition of new asset. 6. In the light of the aforesaid rival contentions, the substantial questions of law that arise for our consideration in this appeal are as under: (i) Whether, the order of the Appellate Tribunal in arriving at the finding that there was sufficient reasons and material to re-open the assessment, by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act is sustainable in law? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is right in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not in dispute that the property purchased by the assessee was habitable but had lacked certain amenities. The assessee has spent nearly about ₹ 18 lakhs towards removal of mosaic flooring and laying of marble flooring, alteration of the kitchen, putting up compound wall, protecting the property with grill work and attending to other repairs. Section 54F of the Act provides that if the cost of the new asset, which is to be taken into consideration while determining the capital gain, the words used is cost of new asset and not the consideration for acquisition of the new asset . In law, it is permissible for an assessee to acquire a vacant site and put up a construction thereon and the cost of the new asset would be cost of land plu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
