TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cquired by the assessee under a joint development agreement dated 7.3.2003. The assessee had 1/3rd share in 2 acres 35 guntas which was given to M/s. Gopalan Enterprises under a joint development agreement and supplementary agreement dated 7.3.2004 and 27.4.2004 respectively. The assessee got 13 flats and 4 car parks from the developer. The assessee retained 7708 sft. and undivided interest in land. The assessee worked out the cost of land and the cost of super built-up area of Flat B 105 that was got under the joint development agreement and which was sold during the previous year Computation of long term capital gain is concerned, the same is a second computation of the long term capital gain filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) and this is not supported by a report of any registered valuer. The flat that was sold by the assessee comprises of undivided share of interest in the land of 472 sft. and the built- up area of the flat is 1315 sft. The land was purchased prior to 1.4.1981 and therefore the assessee has an option to adopt fair market value as on 1.4.1981 insofar as it relates to the land component that was sold along with the built-up area of Flat B 105. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration of ₹ 52 lakhs received on transfer of the property to tax as long term capital gain. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that as early as 1.7.2013, the assessee obtained plan sanction for construction of residential house over the site from BBMP which he had purchased by utilizing the sale consideration on sale of the flat. The assessee submitted that for various reasons, construction of the residential house could not be proceeded with, but since the entire sale consideration was invested in the purchase of the site, assessee should be entitled to exemption u/s. 54 of the Act. This plea was rejected by the CIT(A) for the reason that the assessee did not satisfy the condition that construction should be completed within a period of three years from the date of sale of the flat and this condition was mandatory u/s. 54 of the Act to claim exemption. 5. The next submission made by the assessee before the CIT(A) was that the AO was not justified in bringing to tax the entire sale consideration on sale of the flat and that u/s. 48 of the Act, capital gain has to be computed by reducing from the full value of construction received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exed Cost of Acquisition Particulars Area Cost of Acquisition Index Indexed Cost Land 472 23,600 785/100 185,260 SBA 1,315 3,852,950 785/497 6,085,645 Total 6,270,905 4 Long Term Capital Gain NIL 7. The CIT(Appeals) noticed that as per the first computation of capital gain filed by the assessee which was supported by a report of registered valuer, the value of the built-up area was taken as ₹ 1200 per sft. He was of the view that ₹ 1200 per sft. was on the higher side. He directed the AO to consider the compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mself liable to be charged to interest a/s. 234-B and 234-C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and the levy deserves to be cancelled. 6. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs. 10. We have heard the rival submissions. As far as exemption claimed by the assessee u/s. 54 is concerned, the assessee has not satisfied the condition that the construction of new asset has to be complied within a period of 3 years from the date of transfer. This condition having not been satisfied in the case of assessee, the deduction u/s. 54 of the Act was rightly denied by the revenue authorities. Even today, there has been no construction on the site purchased by the assessee and therefore the action of the revenue authorities in denying the benefit of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act is upheld. 11. We are of the view that the long term capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 472 11. D-M02 1,265 472 12. D-007 1,275 472 13. A-304 2,545 708 14. Basement 250 - Total 18,975 6,608 2. Extent of land transferred to the developer. 111,367 3. Fair Market Value (FMV) of the above @ ₹ 500 per sft. 55,683,500 4. Cost per Sft of the Super built-up area, being the exchange value 2,930 13. As far as the aforesaid computation of long term capital gain is concerned, the same is a second computation of the long term capital gain filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) and this is not supported by a report of any registered valuer. The flat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
