Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ (SMC
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
अपीलाथ$ क' ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.S.Mohan Rajan, CA %&यथ$ क' ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. B.Sagadevan, JCIT सुनवाई क' तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02.07.2018 घोषणा क' तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 03.07.2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
In this appeal filed by the assessee which is directed against an order dated 26.10.2016 of Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-2, Chennai, it has taken the following grounds:
The order of the CIT(Appeals) is contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Determination of Capital Gains The learned C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in abdicating her judicial powers by not passing the speaking order and making enquiry on various issues concerned with the determination of capital income viz.
(a) Determination of sale consideration.
(b) Determination of valuation as on 01.04.1981 in regard to purchase cost of property, expenditure under section 48 of the Act;
(c) Indexation benefit; :- 2 -:
(d) Relief under Section 54 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) fundamentally failed to appreciate the expenses incurred in vacating the tenants amounting to Rs.48,10,000/- was legitimately allowable on the basis of Suits filed by the tenants.
The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not accepting the value returned by the appellant which is absolutely correct having regard to the market conditions in the year of construction and no tinkering on the value could be made by the assessing officer.
5. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in partly allowing the claim under Section 54 of the Act and ought to have determined the actual investment made in another residential property to the extent of Rs.40,97,750/- duly supported by evidence.
The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the claims made by the appellant before the assessing officer praying rectification clearly brought out materials in support of deduction and hence the CIT (Appeals) went wrong in confirming the additions. The appellant craves leave to file additional grounds.
Ground Nos.1 & 6 are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication.
Ld.Counsel for the assessee, at the very outset, submitted that he was not pressing Ground No.2. Accordingly, Ground No.2 is dismissed as not pressed.
4. This leaves us with Ground Nos.3 to 5 which assails disallowance of expenditure claimed for vacating tenants, disallowance of construction cost and disallowance of claim u/s.54 of the Act, while computing the capital gains arising on sale of a property.
I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record.
AO had denied assessee’s claim that the value of the property as on 01.04.1981 was Rs.450/- per sq.ft., while computing the Capital Gains. Assessee had sold a property :- 3 -: measuring 9405 sq.ft. which had in it the residential house of 1000 sq.ft. and commercial shop of 100 sq.ft. located at Old Municipal No.50 and Municipal Nos.144- 158, 2nd Main Road, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560020. Ld.AO was of the opinion that the value of the land as on 01.04.1981 was only Rs.168.67 sq.ft. and not Rs.450/- per sq.ft. as claimed by the assessee. For this, AO relied on a letter dated 24.10.2013 issued by Sub-