TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition as determined by the registered valuer. 2.1 The relevant facts are that the assessee during assessment year under consideration has derived income from Long term capital gain for sale of house property situated at plot no. 5A, Saheli Marg, Fatehpura, Udiapur on 09-05-2008 for ₹ 2.71 crores. The said property was purchased by the deceased father and mother on 23-11- 1972 and construction of house was completed in the year 1973. In L.B.T., assessment dated 5-02-1977, the value of land and building was taken at ₹ 91,375/- as on 01-04- 1974. The assessee's father expired on 26-05-2000 and mother expired on 23-06-2001. The assessee being only legal heir inherited this property in the year 2001. 2.2 In the return fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as further stated there appears to be no dispute regarding the cost of improvement, the indexed cost of which was taken at ₹ 1,51,826/- both by the AO and assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has accordingly stated that assessee has option as per Section 55(2)(b)(ii) of the Act who received the property though inherence in 2001 to either adopt the cost of capital asset to the previous owner or fair market value of the asset as on 01-04-1981. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO that the indexed cost as per fair market value determined by the registered valuer as on 01-04-1981 comes to ₹ 39,16,860/- and also considering cost of improvement of ₹ 1,51,826/- which is to be added thereto and determine Long term capital gains, ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld office premises for a consideration of ₹ 21 Lakhs. The assessee, while filing the return of income had taken its cost of acquisition as on 1-9-1978. Thereupon, after making valuation as on 1-4-1981 the assessee arrived on the indexed cost of acquisition at ₹ 2.93 lakhs. During the assessment proceedings assessee filed a valuation report stating the value as on 1-4-1981 at ₹ 3.80 lakhs and the indexed cost of acquisition was arrived at ₹ 18.24 lakhs. The A.O. did not accept said claim as the assessee had not filed any revised return. The Assessing Officer also did not accept the sale consideration at ₹ 21 lakhs and on noticing that the stamp value for the purpose of registration was at ₹ 42.27 lakhs ado ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-4-1981. In the course of assessment proceedings when the Assessing Officer chose to modify the sale value as per Section 50C, the assessee was well within her rights to choose the value as per the provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer should have entertained assessee s claim when she chose to modify the capital gains working by adopting different sale value as per section 50C. The objection of Commissioner (A) also in rejecting the claim by stating that any claim had to be made by following true procedure of law and one value could not be substituted by any other during the assessment proceedings except under the procedure given under the Act, could not be accepted In view of the above the Assessing Officer was to be direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
