TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings dated 31-12-2009. 3. The assessee had sold a house property at Kilpauk in Chennai through eight sale deeds on 26-4-2004. The property was sold to eight persons, conferring on each of them 1/8th undivided share in the property. The sale was made at the rate of ₹ 18 lakhs per person. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the market value of the property was ₹ 22,73,412/- as against ₹ 18 lakhs per person. Accordingly, the sale consideration under section 50C was worked out to ₹ 1,81,87,296/-. The assessee has admitted, on the other hand, a total sale consideration of ₹ 1,44,00,000/-. The difference of ₹ 37,87,296/- was added by the Assessing Officer to the sale value to recompute the long-term capital gains accountable in the hands of the assessee. 4. In computing the taxable portion of the long-term capital gains, the assessee had claimed exemption under section 54F of the Act. It is on the basis that the assessee had purchased new flats at Bangalore through documents dated 25-10-2004. Initially the Assessing Officer hesitated to grant exemption under section 54F on the ground that the flats purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine the matter. Finally, the Commissioner of Income-tax partially set aside the reassessment order dated 31-12-2009 to the extent of allowance of deduction under section 54F of the Act. He directed the Assessing Officer to confront the assessee to produce evidence to the effect that what she had purchased are not four units of commercial property, but only one unit of residential property. He also directed the Assessing Officer to verify the evidences by referring the matter to the Bangalore Development Authority as to whether it has issued any proceedings to convert the property in question from commercial to residential . 6. It is against the above revision order that the assessee has come in appeal before us. 7. The grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal read as below:- 1. The CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act to revise the re-assessment order dated 31-12-2009 without assigning proper reasons and justification. 2. The CIT failed to appreciate that the twin conditions of error in the order sought to be revised which caused/causing prejudice to the interest of the revenue were not satisfied concurrently on the facts and in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 54F was given to the assessee by the Assessing Officer in his reassessment proceedings only after examining the issue very carefully. The learned counsel explained that at the initial stage the Assessing Officer was not at all willing to grant the exemption on the ground that the four flats purchased by the assessee in Bangalore are in the nature of commercial properties as per the master plan of Bangalore Development Authority. It is only after going through the evidences produced by the assessee before him that he came to the conclusion that even though the property was initially marked as commercial, later on it was converted into residential property. The learned counsel explained that a copy of the order passed by the Bangalore Corporation in this regard was placed before the assessing authority for his perusal and it is after examining that copy of the proceedings of the competent authority that the Assessing Officer has accepted the contention of the assessee that the property purchased by her in Bangalore was a residential property. He also explained that photographs of the property were produced before the assessing authority to have a real understanding as to how the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial in nature. This was known to the assessing authority as well. It is the case of the assessee that the nature of the property was converted into a residential property, as permitted by Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. The Assessing Officer has stated that the reassessment order of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike alongwith the photographs of the property were produced before him. But it is seen that the Assessing Officer has not discussed anything in his order regarding the contents of the reassessment order issued by Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to show that the commercial properties have been converted into residential properties. Photographs as such may not be a reliable evidence. The assessing authority could have asked for more authentic evidences from the assessee. A reassessment order on property tax or licence fee alone is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the commercial nature of the property was converted into residential property. There must be an authentic order of the competent authority at Bangalore that the flats purchased by the assessee as commercial property have been converted into residential property. The Assessing Officer has not gone i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
