9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the claim of the assessee, under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by solely considering the agreement to sell. 3. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add. Alter any/ all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3. The grounds raised in the Revenue's Appeal No. 1649/Del/2014 (AY 2009-10) read as under:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 61,97,460/- on account of setting off of long term capital loss against long term capital gain on sale of property, though apparently, the transaction of purchase of property from her husband was a sham transaction to claim deduction u/s. 54. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing cost of additions / improvements amounting to Rs. 17,40,000/- though no such evidence was filed by the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is perverse both in facts and law. 4. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was duly paid thereon. The AO also did not accept the alleged sale of Mumbai flat by the assessee's daughter Ms. Anjali Chanana to her mother, since, the sale deed with reference to this property was not registered and the Agreement to Sell was only on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 50/- without any witnesses. The AO held that both these transactions were bogus transactions, entered into by the assessee to minimize the tax incidence on Long Term Capital Gain earned by the assessee on sale of her residential house in Noida. Therefore, the AO brought to tax the capital gain earned by the assessee on sale of Noida property, after disallowing the capital loss claimed by the assessee on sale of Hauz Khas property and deduction u/s. 54 for purchase of residential flat at Mumbai. Further, while calculating the capital gains with regards to the Noida property, the AO restricted the cost of improvement and additions of Rs. 17,40,OOO/- pertaining to F.Y. 1992-93 to Rs. 10 lacs only. He also did not allow carry forward and set-off of brought forward losses of Rs. 4,90,202/- in the absence of any evidence whatsoever. Accordingly, the AO assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,34,6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is allowed. REVENUE'S APPEAL (ITA NO. 1649/DEL/2014 AY 2009-10) 10. With regard to ground no. 1 relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 61,97,460/- on account of setting off of long term capital loss against long term capital gain on sale of property at Hauz Khas on its transfer. 10.1 On this issue, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contents of the grounds of appeal. 10.2 On the other hand, Ld. Counsel of the assessee relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 10.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the order of the Ld. CIT(A). We find that Ld. CIT(A) has given factual finding that husband of the assessee has purchased 60% share in Hauz Khas property and got the deed registered and that such transaction was legal transaction as per the Transfer of Property Act, and the payment of Rs. 1.20 crores was made as per the circle rate and stamp duty has been paid and that though assessee and her husband are staying together but they are not on good terms. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that AO cannot deny the legality of the transaction between the assessee and her husband Dr. Charanjit Chanana, whereby, the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case, the assessment order, the submissions of the appellant and the arguments of the ld. AR. The ld. AR has submitted that the AO has made a pure estimate giving general observations to restrict the amount to Rs. 10 lacs. He could have made a reference to the Valuation Officer within the meaning and scope of Section 55A of the Act. However, he did not do so. The complete details of the expenses incurred was provided to the AO in the receipt issued by the contractor. The expenses were incurred around twenty years back in F.Y. 1992-93. Under these facts and circumstances and in the light of the fact that the Completion Certificate was issued by Noida Authority on 21.05.1994, I am of the opinion that the AO should not have restricted the cost of additions/improvements to Rs. 10 lacs on estimate basis as he was not technically competent to do so and he had done this by giving a vague argument saying that "It would not be feasible to allow such a huge expense on the basis of such casual receipts. Therefore, the AO is directed to allow indexation on full amount of Rs. 17,40,000/-. This ground is decided in favour of the appellant. 11.4 After going through the findings of the Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
