Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ B’ SMC BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश / O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER is the appeal filed by Mrs.Fathima Fahima, and is the appeal filed by Mrs.Fathima Fahrhna against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai in appeal No.66/CIT(A)-13/2011-12 & in appeal No.69/CIT(A)-13/2011-12 respectively, both order dated 28.03.2017 for the assessment year 2011-12.
Mr.U.Mohamed Khailullah, represented on behalf of the 2.
Assessee and Mr.B.Sagadevan represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was submitted by the ld.A.R that both the assessees are individuals and are also legal heirs of Mrs.M.A.Ahamed Asia. It was a submission that assessee’s mother Mrs.M.A.Ahamed Asia had purchased a property at 26, Jambulingam Street, Nungambakkam,Chennai-34 along with four others in 1988 and she was owning 1/5th share in the said property purchased. It was further submission that on the death of mother Mrs.M.A.Ahamed Asia on 16.12.2009, the assessee’s each share became 1/9th of absolute owner & 1728/chny/2017 :- 3 -:
of the said property. It was a submission that the said property was sold during the relevant assessment year for about `2 crores. It was a submission that after the purchase of the property, assessee’s mother had demolished the existing construction and had re-constructed the said property between the period 2007 and 2010.
It was a submission that assessee’s mother had incurred expenditure of more than `14 lakhs. It was submitted that the assessee had claimed the cost inflation index in respect of their mother’s investment in the said property. It was a submission that the ld. Assessing Officer did not allow the cost inflation index on the ground that the assessees had not filed any documentary evidence in support of the same. The ld. Assessing Officer had not allowed indexation in respect of cost of indexation from the assessment year 1988-89 also. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, Ld.CIT(A) had allowed indexation from the assessment year 1988-89, but had not allowed the cost of acquisition in respect of re-constructed building. It was a submission that in respect of another sister Smt.Wavoo Fathima Muneera, the same ld. Assessing Officer had accepted the indexation and the cost of construction. The ld.A.R placed a copy of assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 02.03.2016 for assessment year 2010-11, before us. He also drew our attention to the returns filed by her mother Mrs.M.A.Ahamed & 1728/chny/2017 :- 4 -:
Asia, wherein she had disclosed the investment in the construction of the property at 26, Jambulingam Street, Nungambakkam,Chennai-34 as follows:-
A.Y Cost of re-construction(`) 2007-08 4,99,131 2008-09 2,61,814 2009-10 1,35,120 2010-11 6,00,092 Total 14,96,157 It was a prayer that the ld. Assessing Officer may be directed to grant the assessee’s benefit of the indexation in respect of cost of construction as also the cost of improvement.
In reply, the ld.D.R vehemently supported the order of Ld.CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the returns filed by Mrs.M.A.Ahamed Asia, mother of the assessees herein, clearly show that investments in the said property are fully disclosed. A perusal of the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 02.03.2016 for assessment year 2010-11 in the case of one of the sisters of the assessees, namely, Smt.Wavoo Fathima Muneera, shows that the same ld. Assessing Officer has accepted the cost of construction of `14,96,157/- and granted indexation in respect of the said property. This being so, as the cost of construction has been & 1728/chny/2017 :- 5 -:
accepted by the Revenue in the case of one of the sisters of assessees, it is not open to Revenue to say that the evidences are not available.
This being so, the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the assessee’s benefit of the indexation and the cost in respect of cost of construction incurred by the assessee’s mother in respect of the said property, which has been sold, when computing the long term capital gains.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessees, in the case of Mrs.Fathima Fahima and Mrs.Fathima Farhana, are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 27th August, 2018, at Chennai.