TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the purpose of indexation benefit. The aforesaid approach of the Departmental Authorities is completely untenable and unfair. When the assessee through proper documentary evidence is making a claim, the Departmental Authorities are duty bound to examine the correctness of assessee’s claim. Departmental Authorities have completely ignored / overlooked documentary evidences brought on record while making the addition on account of long term capital gain. Eligibility to claim deduction 54F - assessee has not invested the capital gain in new residential house within the prescribed time limit - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) completely misconceived the facts and misapplied the provisions of law while coming to the conclusion that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n grounds no.3, 4 and 5, assessee has raised issues relating to inaccuracies/mistakes in the computation of long term capital gain on account of cost of acquisition and indexation benefit. 5. Brief facts are, the assessee an individual was a joint owner of flat 1 at First Floor, B Wing of Lloyds Garden along with her husband. Assessee s share in the said flat was to the extent of 40%. In the financial year relevant to the assessment year under dispute, assessee and her husband sold the said flat vide agreement dated 3rd July 2010 for a total sale consideration of ₹ 2,98,00,000. In the return of income filed for the assessment year under dispute, assessee declared total income of ₹ 81,65,345. In the computation of income fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the computation of long term capital gain by the Assessing Officer as well as denial of deduction claimed under section 54 of the Act. 7. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) while dealing with assessee s claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act referred to certain specific provision of section 54F of the Act imposing restriction on the number of property to be held by the assessee for claiming deduction under the said provision. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed, since on the date of sale of the original asset, the assessee was having more than one residential house other than the new as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actual purchase price of ₹ 1,10,00,001. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, there is error also in the date of acquisition as mentioned by the Departmental Authorities. Further, with regard to the issue relating to deduction claimed under section 54 of the Act, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, though, the assessee has claimed the deduction under section 54 of the Act, however, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly referring to the provisions of section 54F of the Act has rejected assessee s claim of deduction by holding that since the assessee on the date of purchase of new residential house was the owner of more than one house she is not entitled to deduction. The learned Authorised Representative su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal Representative submitted that in view of the factual issues raised in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee the matter may be restored back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. 10. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. At the outset, we will deal with the issue relating to the cost of acquisition of the house property sold by the assessee i.e., Flat no.1, Lloyds Garden, Mumbai. As against assessee s claim of cost of acquisition of the said property at ₹ 1,10,00,001, the Assessing Officer has taken the cost of acquisition at ₹ 36,66,667 for the purpose of indexation. It is the contention of the assessee that Flat no.1, Lloyds Garden, was owned by three co owners and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Departmental Authorities have completely ignored / overlooked documentary evidences brought on record while making the addition on account of long term capital gain. 11. As regards assessee s claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act, while the Assessing Officer disallowed assessee s claim of deduction on the reasoning that the assessee has not invested the capital gain in new residential house within the prescribed time limit, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) completely misconceived the facts and misapplied the provisions of law while coming to the conclusion that the assessee being the owner of more than one residential house apart from the new residential house is not eligible to claim deduction 54F of the Act. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
