Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-3/IT-9/ITO-2(1)(3)/16-17 dated 08.12.2016. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Mumbai (in short ‘ITO’/ AO) for the A.Y. 2012-13 vide order dated
05.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the orders of lower authorities for not providing benefit of indexation and cost of acquisition of the property. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee has sold the following properties: -
“1. Shop No 1 at Nityanand Dham, Ganesh Puri, Bhivandi. ii. Shop No 2 at Nityanand Dham, Ganesh Puri, Bhivandi. iii. Land admeasuring 2823.73 sq. mts. Survey No 53 & 56P, Plot No 4,11-15. iv. Land admeasuring 1475.39 sq. mts, Survey 53 & 57 Plot No. 14, 17-19 v. Land admeasuring 3208.74 sq. Mts survey No 53 & 56 vi Layout road survey No 53 & 56 admeasuring 1840.80 sq. Mts.”
As the assessee could not produce any documentary evidence to establish the date of acquisition, the AO has not allowed the cost of acquisition and consequential indexation. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the before the CIT(A). Before CIT(A) also the assessee could not produce any evidences and hence, CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, now assessee in appeal before us.
Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed a copy of sale deed in respect of purchase of plot at item No. III, V & VI (above
District Registrar Class-II, Mumbai vide application filed on 10.03.2017 vide application No. 1885/Mum/2017 and filed this additional evidence. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page No. 3 of the conveyance deed wherein the cost of purchase amount of Rs. 8 lakhs is depicted. According to the learned Counsel this evidence be admitted and matter can be remanded back to the file of the AO for adjudicating the same after considering this evidence. In regard to the asset appearing at Item No. II i.e. Shop No 2 at Nityanand Dham, Ganesh Puri, Bhivandi, the cost of acquisition in financial year 1994-95 was to the extent of 1,37,751/- and for this the learned Counsel for the assessee requested that he is trying very hard to get the evidence but could not lay his hand. He requested that since the first issue is remanded back to the file of the AO, this also can be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer. In case, the assessee is able to produce any evidence, the AO will consider and allow. On the other hand, the learned Sr. Departmental Representative supported the orders of lower authorities.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee is a private company and it has purchased the plot of land at a cost of ₹ 8 lacs and the index cost of the said plots are at ₹ 32,10,731/-. During the course of' assessment proceedings the applicant was called upon to furnish the purchase agreement of the plot of land to substantiate the cost of acquisition at Rs 8,00,000/-(Indexed Cost Rs 32,10,731/-). As purchase agreement was not available, the assessee submitted Index II before the AO and CIT(A) as an evidence to substantiate its claim of cost of land at Rs 8,00,000/- (Indexed Cost Rs 32,10,731/-). The Index II was not considered as sufficient evidence by the authorities below. The AO computed the capital
Plots at NIL and determined the income from long term capital gain at Rs 27,01,581/-. The CIT(A) affirmed the order of the AO and confirmed the addition of Rs 27,01,581/- , by considering the cost of acquisition land as Nil and disallowing the indexed cost of acquisition Rs 32,10,731/- of the said plot land. Thereafter the assessee on 10.3.2017 vide application No 1885/17 applied for the deed of conveyance and retrieved the deed from the records of the Joint District Registrar Class II Mumbai. The said conveyance deed is forming part of the paper book at page no 4 to 25. The assessee now has produced this evidence and substantiate its claim of the cost of land ₹ 8,00,000/-.
In view of the above, we admit this additional evidence and remanded the matter back to the file of the AO for consideration of this sale deed wherein cost of acquisition incurred by assessee is Rs. 8 lacs. Accordingly, this issue is remanded back to the file of the AO. As regards to the cost of acquisition of Shop No 2 at Nityanand Dham, Ganesh Puri, Bhivandi, the AO will allow one more opportunity to the assessee to file the evidence. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is remanded back to the file of the AO and allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06-08-2018. AadoSa kI GaaoYaNaa Kulao mao idnaMk 06-08-2018 kao kI ga[- .