TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and got the deed registered and that such transaction was legal transaction as per the Transfer of Property Act, and the payment of ₹ 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 has sold 60% of her share in her Hauz Khas property to her husband and accordingly, the AO has no option but to allow the resultant Long Term Capital Loss to the assessee. We also allowed the claim of the assessee under section 54 in assessee’s appeal, as aforesaid. In view of the above, the Ld. CIT(A)’s action of allowing the set off loss against long term capital gain does not need any interference on my part, hence, we uphold the same and dismiss the ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue. Allowing cost of additions /improvements - Held that:- We find that the complete details of the expenses incurred was provided to the AO in the receipt issued by the contractor. The expenses were incurred around twent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 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 ₹ 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. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. ASSESSEE S APPEAL (ITA NO. 1615/DEL/2014 AY- 2009-10) 4. The brief facts of the case are that the return of Income declaring net income of R.28,42,810/- was filed on 31.10.2009. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Later, the case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice u/s. 143(2)of the Act was issued on 20.08.2010. During the year under consideration, the assessee had decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oida. 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 ₹ 17,40,OOO/- pertaining to F.Y. 1992-93 to ₹ 10 lacs only. He also did not allow carry forward and set-off of brought forward losses of ₹ 4,90,202/- in the absence of any evidence whatsoever. Accordingly, the AO assessed the income of the assessee at ₹ 2,34,61,770/- vide his order dated 9.12.2011 passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 20.1.2014 has upheld the action of the AO of not allowing the exemption u/s. 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6. Now the Assessee is aggrieved against the impugned order and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has stated that the only issue in the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 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 has sold 60% of her share in her Hauz Khas property to her husband and accordingly, the AO has no option but to allow the resultant Long Term Capital Loss to the assessee. We also allowed the claim of the assessee under section 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in assessee s appeal, as aforesaid. In view of the above, the Ld. CIT(A) s action of allowing the set off loss of ₹ 61,97,640/- against long term capital gain does not need any interference on my part, hence, we uphold th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 17,40,000/-. This ground is decided in favour of the appellant. 11.4 After going through the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), as aforesaid, we find that the assessee has sold immovable property at Noida during the year under consideration for ₹ 3.75 crores. She had acquired a plot of land during F.Y. 1982-83 from Noida Authority for ₹ 3,60,130/-. She carried out construction on the said plot during F.Y. 1992-93 by spending a sum of ₹ 17,40,000/-, out of which she had spent ₹ 15,84,000/- on cost of constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
