TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , there is clear contradiction between these two documents and the correct factual matrix is required to be brought on record. To resolve the same, we remit the issue back to the file of Ld. AO to ascertain the correct factual matrix. It could be noted that the property under consideration is immoveable property and the sale value of the same could be ascertained on the basis of sale deeds. AO is directed to ascertain the aggregate sale consideration arising out of sale of pots of land sold by the assessee during the year. The assessee is directed to file the relevant details / explanation. Application of Sec.50C AO shall consider the submissions / objection of the assessee to the adoption of stamp duty value and readjudicate the same. The assessee s plea that Sec.50C would have no application in case of sale executed through POA would not hold much water since no such distinction has been created under the statute. Similarly, the cost of improvement could not be allowed in the absence of any documentary evidences forthcoming from the assessee. Deduction u/s 54F would also stand restored back to the file of Ld. AO in the light of inspector s report as placed by the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to appreciate that the assessee purchased a residential property comprising of land and building, which building was in two parts within the same door number and duly complies with the conditions for exemption and hence this would not disentitle the assessee for exemption on a part of the property. 7. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the grant of exemption u/s.54F cannot be restricted by giving a narrow interpretation to a beneficial provision, intended for reinvestment in residential property, which the assessee had duly complied with and hence the denial of exemption on the entire amount of reinvestment was wholly unjustified and untenable in law. 8. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the claim of assessee was in accordance with the provisions of law and the Madras High Court decision in V.R.Karpagam case (373 ITR 127) and hence the denial of exemption on a part of the property was arbitrary and without any statutory basis and hence the exemption u/s.54F is to be granted as claimed by the assessee. 9. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of indexation on the improvement cost of ₹ 128000 incurred by the assessee on land fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 2.09 Lacs was offered to tax as taxable capital gains. 3.2 It was noted by Ld. AO that Smt. B.Amudha who was managing the assessee-HUF made huge cash deposits in Indian Bank. During the course of her own assessment proceedings, it was stated that the cash deposits were HUF funds since the HUF did not have separate bank account. The POA holder Shri P. Vaidyanathan confirmed having received the commission on sale of plots. In the said background, Ld. AO proceeded to examine the computation of capital gains as done by the assessee. 3.3 In this year, total 33 number of plots having aggregate area of 46808 square feets were sold through POA holder. In next year, 3 plots having aggregate area of 6144 square feets were sold by the assessee. The same has been detailed in the assessment order. The guideline value of the land was found to be ₹ 550/- per square feet. The Ld. AO also noted that the assessee did not offer any capital gain on sale of area of 13747 square feets which was allegedly sold before executing the power of attorney.It was concluded by Ld. AO that the sale took place between the period 01.04.2010 to 04.08.2010 i.e., before the execution of power of attorne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally, the two properties were purchased by the assessee on same date from respective sellers. Thus, the property was a single unit initially and thereafter sub-dividedamongst the legal heirs and sold separately. The assessee purchased the same as a single unit for possession and enjoyment. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT V/s V.R.Karpagam (337 ITR 127)which considered the amendment brought in to Sec.54F w.e.f. 01.04.2015. 4.2 However, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed AO s finding that only 46808 square feet of land was sold by the assessee through POA holder whereas the remaining areas was sold by the assessee himself since the assessee could not rebut the same with details of sale of plot with period of sale. Further, the objection to valuation of ₹ 550/- per square feet as adopted by Ld. AO was to be rejected since Ld. DVO valued the land at ₹ 552/- per square feet. The plea that Sce.50C would have no application, was to be rejected since the sale was done by POA holder as an agent. The assessee raised another plea that the capital asset was converted into current asset which was to be rejected being mere after-tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
