TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessee. Whether lower revenue authorities have erred in computing the capital gain by ignoring the fact that the assessee has invested entire capital gain in specified bonds as per section 54EC? - Held tht:- AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in computing the capital gain in this case to the tune of ₹ 11,36,211/- by computing the capital gain on the basis of deemed cost of consideration as against actual cost of consideration required u/s 48 of the Act and have also lost sight of the fact that assessee has invested the entire capital in specified bonds as per provisions contained u/s 54EC of the Act. So, we answer the aforesaid question in favour of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1659/Del./2013 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2016 - Shri J. S. Reddy, Accountant Member And Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Anil Jain, CA For the Revenue : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DR ORDER Per Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member The appellant, Shri Prem Nath, by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 03.01.2013 passed by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXVIII, New Delhi qua the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Consequently, the assessee was called upon to explain as to why the sale consideration be not taken at ₹ 16,43,000/- in view of the provisions contained u/s 50C of the Act. Finding the explanation furnished by the assessee not tenable, the AO calculated the long term capital gain accrued to the assessee to the following effect :- Sale consideration u/s 50C Rs.16,43,000/- Indexed cost of acquisition (as declared by the assessee) ₹ 2,06,780/- Rs.14,36,211/- Less deduction u/s 54EC ₹ 3,00,000/- Long Term Capital Gain Rs.11,36,211/- and made an addition thereof to the total income of the assessee. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by challenging the assessment order who has dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 233 and cases decided by ITAT, Jaipur Bench in cases cited as Nand Lal Sharma vs. ITO (2015) 172 TTJ 0412 (Jp) and Gyan Chand Batra vs. ITO (2010) 133 TTJ 0482. However, on the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue relied upon the order passed by the AO as well as the ld. CIT (A). 8. Undisputedly, the assessee has purchased a plot in question from a housing society in the year 2002 for a sale consideration of ₹ 7,500/- against circle rate of ₹ 6,57,500/- and sold the same in 2009 for a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- against the circle rate of ₹ 16,43,000/-; that the assessee computed the capital gains on the actual sale consideration recorded in the sale deed; that the assessee has invested the capital gains computed by him in specified bonds as per provisions contained u/s 54EC and claimed the complete exemption. 9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the first question arises for determination in this case is:- as to whether capital gains are to be computed on actual amount received or on the deemed amount accrued to the assessee? 10. Issue in controversy has already been set at rest by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be ₹ 2,93,211/-. 12. So, in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in case cited as Smt. Nilofer I Singh (supra), we are of the considered view that lower revenue authorities have erred in computing the capital gain in the instant case on the basis of deemed cost of consideration u/s 50C whereas AO was statutorily required to compute the capital gain as per provisions contained u/s 48 of the Act on the basis of actual cost of consideration received by the assessee. 13. The next question arises for determination in this case is :- as to whether lower revenue authorities have erred in computing the capital gain by ignoring the fact that the assessee has invested entire capital gain of ₹ 2,93,211/- in specified bonds as per section 54EC? 14. Provisions contained u/s 54EC are categoric enough to cover the case of the assessee because when the assessee has invested entire capital gain in the specified bond as per provisions contained u/s 54EC, the entire capital gain earned by him shall be exempted, if the cost of investment in the specified assets is not less than the amount of the capital gains. The word cost appearing i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
