TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anil kumar, the purchaser and the assessee. Further examination of the contents of the suit referred by Shri Anil kumar and D. Sri Rama Krishna are also appear to be crucial for arriving at the correct factual position. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the case required to be remitted back to the file of the AO to verify the entire facts and to decide both the issues of sale consideration and the cost of construction on merits. Both the ld.AR and the DR have agreed for remitting the matter back to the file of the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remit the matter back to the file of the AO for de-novo consideration. - I.T.A.No.343/Vizag/2017 And C.O. 72/Vizag/2017 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purchaser of the property M/s. Gajuwaka Constructions represented by it s Managing Director Shri Dadi Shri Rama Krishna dated 31.07.2013. The A.O. also noted that the assessee had entered in to sale agreement on 31.01.2013 with Smt. Allika Anuradha, W/o Rani Anil Kumar, to sell the impugned property for a consideration of ₹ 2.45 crores and received the advance of ₹ 10.00 lacs on 23/11/2012 and ₹ 5.00 lacs on16/01/2012 but admitted the long term capital gains tax on sale deed amount of ₹ 1.50 crores. In view of the above facts, the A.O. re-opened the assessment by issuance of notice u/s.148 dated 12.1.2016 and taken up the case for reassessment. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apital gains as under: Total sale consideration received as on 31.1.2013 Less: Cost of acquisition: Rs.2,45,00,000 Cost of land purchased 500 Sq.Yds x ₹ 400/- per Sq. Yd = Rs.2,00,000 Indexed cost of acquisition = (2,00,000 x 939)/100 ₹ 18,78,000 Taxable Long term capital gain Rs.2,26,22,000 3. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the agreement entered in to by the assessee with Smt. Allika Anuradha, W/o Sri Rani Anil Kumar dated 31.01.2013, MOU of Shri R. Anil Kumar (hu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sale consideration at ₹ 2.45 crores and supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A) to allow the cost of construction. 4. Appearing for the revenue, the Ld. D.R. argued that as per recitals of the registered sale deed dated 31.7.2013, the assessee has demolished the building prior to the sale of the property and there was no building as such at the time of transfer of the property. The assessee has handed over vacant site, admeasuring 500 sq.yds. to the vendee as per registered sale deed and assessee has not furnished any evidence with regard to the existence of the building at the time of the sale, thus there is no case for allowing the benefit of indexation with regard to the cost of construction of the building and argued that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excess amount for sale of the plot and he was not aware of the MOU reached between husband of Smt. Anuradha and Mr. D.Sree Rama Krishna, M.D. of M/s. Gajuwaka Constructions and no way responsible for the said terms and conditions of the MOU. Thus the Ld.AR argued that he has admitted the sale consideration correctly and claimed the correct cost of construction hence requested to set aside the orders of the lower authorities and direct the AO to accept the income returned. 6. In the rejoinder the Ld. D.R. submitted that the sale agreement entered with Smt. Allika Anuradha, the statements recorded from Sri R. Anil Kumar on 1.9.2015 and the MOU dated 31.3.2013 establish that the sale consideration was atRs. 2.45 crores and the same required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tence of the building but did not accept the sale consideration mentioned therein. Therefore submissions of both the department and the assesse have made the contradicting claims for sale consideration as well as the cost of construction. It is seen from the appeal order that both Shri Anil kumar and the purchaser have agreed that the excess amount over and above the sale deed to the extent of ₹ 95.00 lacs was passed on the to the assesse. Both Mr.Anil kumar and Shri D.Sri Rama Krishna referred the pending dispute in the court which was not disputed by the assesse during the appeal hearing. The details of pending suit was not furnished before the Ld.AO and the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR during the appeal hearing also did not furnish the pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
