9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1591/Hyd/2012. The grounds raised by the assessees are as follows: i) The learned CIT(A)-IV is erred in the facts and in law while passing the appeal order. ii) The learned CIT(A) has not considered the genuine factual situation for condonation of delay in filing the appeals (6 months 12 days). iii) The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the first and second property was purchased within the specified period permissible u/s. 54(1) to claim exemption. iv) For these and other grounds which be raised during or before hearing of appeal, it is prayed that the relief sought be granted. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee had filed her return of income for A.Y. 2005-06 on 1.8.2005, declaring an income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Assessing Officer opined that since the assessee had claimed capital gain exemption of Rs. 34,03,603/ -, the same was required to be reduced from the cost of acquisition as per the provisions of sec. 54(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the short term capital gains on sale of the house in the A.Y. 2005-06 was worked out as under: Sale consideration : Rs. 32,50,000 Less: Cost of acquisition (Rs. 36,88,753 - Rs. 34,03,603) : Rs. 2,85,150 Short term Capital gains : Rs. 29,64,850 The Assessing Officer has further mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee, vide a letter dtd. nil, accepted the above computation of Short term Capital gains at Rs. 29,64,850/-. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that firstly the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prevented the Assessing Officer from carrying out any further investigations in the matter, which could have proved whether that the sale proceeds of the original property were actually invested in the acquisition of the second house property. 7. The learned AR submitted before us that the assessment order was passed on 28.12.2010 u/s. 143(3) of the Act and the appeal was filed before the CIT(A) on 18.8.2011. There was a marginal delay of 6 months 12 days which was unintentional and may be condoned. He drew our attention to the reasons mentioned in the petition filed before the CIT(A) which are as under: "This appeal ought to have been filed in February 2011, however, the same could not be filed since we were under the impression that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
