Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘ A ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.
O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2015-16 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad’s order dt.8.2.2019 passed in case No.10220/2018-19 in proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The assessee has pleaded the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :
“ 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) ought to have upheld the Cost of Construction as on 01/04/1981 before indexation Rs. at Rs. 3,82,600/[@ Rs. 313.6/- per Sq. Ft ] and the indexed cost of acquisition thereon at Rs. 39,28,175/- as on 01/04/1981, while computing the capital gains.
3. The learned CIT(A) failed to note that the cost of Construction of the property as on 01/04/1981 at the option of the appellant was determined by the registered valuer at Rs. 3,82,600/- before indexation and at Rs. 39,28,175/- after indexation by the appellant and therefore ought to have upheld the aforesaid valuation for the purpose of computing capital gains."
Both the learned representatives invited our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion reading as under :
We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions against and in support of correctness of both the lower authorities’ estimating the assessee's cost acquisition as on 1.4.1981 at Rs.34.10 per sq. ft. as against that claimed of Rs.313.60 per sq. ft.; respectively. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee has sought to place reliance of its registered valuer’s report whereas the learned lower authorities have gone by the Sub-Registrar Office rate at the relevant time. Both the learned representatives fairly informed us that the said rate remain unchanged for almost a period of two decades from 1976 to 1995. And also that the assessee had acquired his relevant capital asset way back on 27.11.1967 (agreement followed by the sale deed dt.13.6.1978) and alleged construction of first floor as well as an additional room on ground floor; respectively. We further find that neither the assessee nor the department have been able to file the corresponding comparable cases qua the relevant time span or as on 1.4.1981; as the case may be. Faced with this situation, we quote “thums rule” and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt average of the assessee's and revenue’s respective rate i.e. Rs.313.60 and Rs.30.10 per sq. ft.; respectively coming to Rs.175 per sq. ft. followed by the necessary commutation. It is further made clear that our instant estimation shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case.
We lastly acknowledge that although the instant appeals are being decided after a period of 90 days Rule 34(5) of the IT(AT) Rules 1963, the same however, does not apply in the covid lockdown situation as per hon'ble apex court's recent directions dated 27-04-2021 in M.A.No.665/2021 in SM(W)C No.3/2020 'In Re Cognizance for extension of limitation' making it clear that in such cases where the limitation period (including that prescribed for institution as well as termination) shall stand excluded from 14th of March, 2021 till further orders. 6. This assessee's appeal is partly allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th August, 2021.