TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to dislodge the findings nor has any other decision on this issue been placed before us. This being so, as it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Manjula J. Shah [ 2011 (10) TMI 406 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Construction of the residential house - A perusal of the capital gains account in the assessee s case with SBI shows that the first entry is of 27.07.2012 wherein there was a deposit of ₹ 25,000/- and then there are various other deposits. On 15.03.2013, there is a withdrawal of ₹ 90,12,733/- and subsequently another withdrawal of ₹ 5,01,500/- on 21.04.2014. A perusal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SBI regarding the deposit of sum towards the educational loan account of Shri Guarav Syal and Shri Rajan Syal and the said evidence was not produced before the AO - HELD THAT:- As the said evidence has not been produced before the AO for examination, in the interest of natural justice, the issue in respect of the deduction u/s.80E is restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after granting adequate opportunity to the assessee of being heard. - ITA No. 301/Mds/2017 - - - Dated:- 2-11-2017 - Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member And Shri George Mathan, Judicial Member For the Department : Mr. ARV. Sreenivasan, JCIT. For the Assessee : Mr. R. Lakshmi Ratan. ORDER Per George Mathan, Judicial Member: ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Manjula J. Shah reported in 16 Taxmann.com to hold that the Cost Inflation Index was to be applied by taking the date of ownership as on 01.04.1981. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the AO. 5. In reply, the Ld.AR supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) more specific at Page No. 10 of his Order clearly shows that the Ld. CIT(A) while applying the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Manjula J. Shah has taken into consideration the fact that the property was originally owned by the assessee s grand-mother and in view of the provisions of Explanation-1(i)(b) to Sec.2(42A) has h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. Bonds (REC Bonds) and the remaining capital gains had been deposited in the capital gains account and an amount of ₹ 24,31,000/- was invested in the purchase of land for the construction of a new residential house. It was a submission that out of ₹ 95,30,000/- deposited in the capital gains account, the assessee had withdrawn an amount of ₹ 95,53,249/- towards payment to the Builder for the construction of the new house property during the period from 15.03.2013 to 21.04.2014. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) had directed that the assessee was entitled to claim of deduction in respect of capital gains. It was a submission that the construction of the house property itself was in question. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al gains account with SBI is shown as 32449616206. How the Ld.CIT(A) has treated the other bank accounts as capital gains account is unknown? The said capital gains account has shown in the Paper Book shows total deposit of nearly ₹ 96,21,714/-. How the Ld. CIT(A) has arrived at the figure of ₹ 95,30,000/- is also not coming out of any evidences? The Ld.AR has not been able to place before us any evidence to show that the residential house had been constructed. The Ld.AR was unable to explain, if the Completion Certificate was received on April 16, 2015, why the same had not been produced before the Ld. CIT (A)? However, no reply was given. Further, a perusal of the capital gains account, only two withdrawals one is ₹ 90,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
