TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e cross objections on appeal by the assesse and has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay citing health reasons. We have heard both the parties and after considering the reasons for delay, the delay is condoned and cross objections are admitted. 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee flied his return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 14.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 1,78,310/- which include the income from house property and other sources. The Assessing Officer (A.O.), on verification of impounded material found during the course of survey conducted in the business premises of Shri Dadi Sri Rama Krishna, MD of M/s. Gajuwaka Constructions Pvt. Ltd., that the assessee had sold the property for a sale consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Anuradha, W/o Rani Anil Kumar, the MOU of Shri R. Anil Kumar (husband of A. Anuradha) with the purchaser of the property M/s. Gajuwaka Constructions dated 31.07.2013 and the statement recorded from Shri Rani Anil Kumar the actual consideration was Rs. 2.45 crores but not Rs. 1.50 crores accordingly assessed the capital gains. 2.1 The AO also noted that the assessee claimed the cost of construction and improvement but as per the sale deed the property sold was a vacant site. The AO called upon the assessee to explain the same. The assessee submitted before the AO that the building was in existence as on the date of registration but the same was not mentioned in the sale deed by the oversight. The AO rejected the assessee's arguments an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inth area of 3200 sq.ft. each and second floor of 2700 sq.ft in Dr.No.31-31-21 and directed the A.O. to allow the benefit of indexation of cost of construction. However with regard to the valuation of the property for indexation, the CIT(A) directed the A.O. to obtain valuer's report of the bank or other reliable information since there are no details and accordingly remitted the matter back to the file of the AO to determine the cost of construction. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) the department has filed appeal to Tribunal challenging the order of the CIT(A) with regard to allowing the cost of construction of the building and the assessee filed cross objections challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for determining the sale consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Since there was an existence of building, which was supported by the loan taken by the assesse mortgaging the building, the Ld. A.R. argued that there is no error in the order of the CIT(A) and no interference is called for. With regard to the cross objections, the Ld. A.R. argued that it is a fact that the assessee has entered into an agreement for the sale of property for an amount of Rs. 2.45 crores with Allika Anuradha and received advance of Rs. 15 lakhs. However, the agreement did not materialize, hence the assessee has sold the property to M/s. Gajuwaka Constructions for a consideration of Rs. 1.5 crores by sale deed dated 31.07.2013. The Ld.A.R further stated that the assessee has not received any excess amount for sale of the plot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... kumar and the purchaser dated 31.07.2013 and the statement recorded from Shri R.Anil kumar on 01/09/2015 held that the sale consideration was Rs. 2.45 crores. There was no finding or evidence collected by the A.O. with regard to the receipt of sum of Rs. 2.45 crores except the MOU, the sale agreement with Smt. Anuradha and the statement of Shri Anil kumar and D. Shrirama Murthy. The AO has believed the MOU dated 31/07/2013 and the agreement for taxing the sale consideration of Rs. 2.45 crores but did not consider the recitals for cost of construction of the building though it was mentioned in the MOU. Similarly though the assesse relied on the MOU and the sale agreement for existence of the building but did not accept the sale consideratio....