9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of ₹ 1,69,83,383/- made by the A.O. u/s 69B of the Act, ignoring that:- i) the deletion of the addition is in contradiction to the findings at paras 8.6, 8.7 and 8.8 of the Ld.CIT(A)'s order. ii) Since the 2nd and 3rd floors of the complex were sold during the financial year 2004-05 the valuation certificate dt. 4.4.2005 giving the actual cost of construction can definitely be considered to be more relevant and genuine than the valuation certificate dt. 10.10.2005 showing the projected cost of construction. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- (actual amount ₹ 1,55,00,000/-) made u/s 69B of the Act by not deciding entirely on merits the contentions of the AO discussed in detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sold 2nd and 3rd floors. The assessee declared capital gains on the sale of 2nd and 3rd floors as detailed below. Sale consideration Rs.5,67,70,000 Cost of construction of 2nd and 3rd floors Rs.5,65,72,958 ------------------------ 1,97,041 ------------------------- 8.3. According to the AO the cost of construction was ₹ 3,95,84,575/- as per the valuer/architect certificate. Hence there is unexplained investment which is worked out as under. Cost according to the AO Rs.5,65,72,958 Less: Cost as per valuer's certificate 3,95,84,575 Difference ------------------------ 1,69,88,383 ------------------- 8.4. The A.R. has explained that entire sale consideration of ₹ 5,67,70,000 was taken into account to declare capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crores which included ₹ 3.95 crores on the second and third floor. The second Valuation Certificate dt. 10.10.2005 projected the cost of the 2nd and 3rd floors at ₹ 5.65 crores. This was just a projection whereas the actual amount incurred upto 31.3.2005 was ₹ 3.95 crores only. On these facts we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the A.O. was wrong in his presumption that the amount of ₹ 5.65 crores, was already spent before 31.3.2005. In the result, ground no.1 is dismissed. 7. Coming to ground no.2, we find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has at para 12 of his order reconciled the amount of loans taken. At para 15 to 22 he has discussed the figures and has come to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
