Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (12) TMI 492

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of law and on facts. 2(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in accepting the cost of construction to the extent of 75% of the value of property estimated by the registered valuer. (ii) That once accepting in principle that the cost of construction has in fact been incurred, the learned CIT(A) has erred in estimating the same to the extent of 75% of value estimated by the registered valuer. (iii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in estimating the 75% of the value estimated by the registered valuer without there being any basis for the same. (iv) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in taking 75% of the value estimated by the registered valuer, without pointing out an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion u/s 54F of the Act for both the properties and tax was paid on the remaining amount of Rs. 35,54,080/-. Further, with the cost of acquisition of the property situated in Okhla Industrial Area, the assessee claimed construction expenses of Rs. 63,76,658/-. During the course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce evidence to support the construction expenses as claimed by the assessee. In response to which, the assessee filed a reply dated 05.02.2015, stating therein that the records prevailing to the A.Ys. 2002 to 2006 were not available with the assessee. The assessee submitted the copies of purchase deed of the said property i.e. Okhla Industrial Area property. The assessee before the Assessing Of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... construction as adopted by the assessee then the Assessing Officer could have referred the matter to a valuation officer under Section 142A of the Act for determining the cost of construction. Alternatively, Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer could have given opportunity to the assessee to arrange a valuation report from a registered valuer so as to justify the construction cost as claimed by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that a copy of valuation report as an additional evidence prepared by the accrued valuers clearly states that the total value was computed to Rs. 62,05,000/-. After considering the valuation report, the CIT(A) asked for the comments from the Assessing Officer on the report. However, the Assessing Officer chos .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to be ready to use. The Ld. AR submitted that once the CIT(A) accepted the value of the construction cost to the extent of 75% of the estimated value calculated by the registered valuer without any basis is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly held that some amount of investment has taken place in the construction of the property and therefore, rightly directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the capital gain by accepting 75% of the value estimated by the Registered Value. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. Since the CIT(A) has already accepted the fact that there was a construction and has not doubted the valuation report .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was not before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). Therefore, in absence of any evidence, the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed this addition on account of commission expenses. Ground No.3 is dismissed. 11. As regards Ground No.4, in respect of disallowance of exemption u/s 54 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 2,13,23,510/-. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold Industrial property situated at Okhla for Rs. 2.7 Crores. However, to claim the benefit of exemption u/s 54F of the Act the assessee purchased a flat at Gurgaon for Rs. 2,13,23,510/- within the stipulated time as mentioned in Section 54F of the Act. However, the said investment was made partly through own funds and partly through borrowed funds. Thus, the total elig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates