Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”], Vijayawada in Appeal No.262/CIT(A)/VJA/2016-17 DIN :ITBA/APL/M/250/2019- 20/1026336587(1) dated 09.03.2020 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2 ITA No.187/Viz/2020, A.Y.2009-10 Gampa Santhi, Vijayawada
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has sold vacant land of 105 sq.yds vide document No.1725/2008 dated 14.05.2008 for a consideration of Rs.17,50,000/- during the F.Y.2008-09, relevant to A.Y.2009-10 to Sri Golla Narayana RAO, Vijayawada, but has not filed return of income for the A.Y.2009-10. Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) was issued on the assessee and in response to which the assessee filed her return of income admitting ‘Nil’ income and also filed computation of income, claiming exemption u/s 54 of the Act. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee , but could not be served, as the assessee had shifted to Hyderabad as informed by her husband, Sri Srinivasa Rao. Thereafter, final show cause netter dated 10.10.2016 was issued to the assessee and served by affixure proposing addition of Rs.17,50,000/- as capital gains income for the A.Y.2009-10. But the assessee has neither complied with the notices issued nor furnished any written explanation regarding claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act and also the evidences in respect of indexed cost of acquisition claimed. Hence, the sale consideration of Rs.17,50,000/- is treated as income from capital gains of the assessee for the A.Y.2009-10. 3 ITA No.187/Viz/2020, A.Y.2009-10 Gampa Santhi, Vijayawada
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds :
The learned Assessing Officer made huge and unjust addition of Rs.17,50,000/- under the head capital gain and treated the entire sale proceeds as income without considering the capital gain indexation and land levelling expenditure. The Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada has considered the house construction expenditure of Rs.12,00,000/- and not considered land levelling expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/- since vouchers were not produced. I have maintained the vouchers and lorry transport receipts but all the vouchers and receipts were misplaced and could not be traced out, since 12 years were elapsed. I could not produce the vouchers and receipts as they were misplaced and all my efforts to locate the old records are in vain. I request the honourable Tribunal to consider the land levelling expenditure and capital gain indexation as expenditure incurred by me is genuine and I swear an oath that the said land levelling expenditure is incurred by me. I have constructed a residential house within the year with the sale proceeds of site of 105 sq.yards amounting to Rs.17,50,000/-. I have no other house except the newly constructed house, since I have fully utilized the sale proceeds for the investment in new house, the capital gain arising on sale of original asset is wholly exempt u/s 54F of IT Act. Under the facts and in the circumstances the Appellant humbly prays to kindly allow the land levelling expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/- and the difference in the eligible exemption u/s 54F
4 ITA No.187/Viz/2020, A.Y.2009-10 Gampa Santhi, Vijayawada
computed on a proportionate basis Rs.1,64,564/- totalling to Rs.4,64,564/- may kindly be allowed.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issue of notice to the assessee and hence we proceed to hear the submissions of the Ld.DR.
It was the submission of the Ld.DR that the assessee has not filed any return of income, therefore, notice u/s 148 was issued, but since the assessee did not appear, the AO issued order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act . Aggrieved by which, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) called for remand report and after considering the submissions, the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. The Ld.DR further submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) to be confirmed.
We have heard the Ld.DR, considered the material available on record and also we have perused the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the extract of which is as under :
I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the assessment order, the written submission of the assessee, the remand report of the AO and the rejoinder submitted by the assessee. In the assessment order, the entire sale consideration of Rs.17.50 lakhs from sale of vacant site was treated as the income from long term capital gains by making disallowance of claim of deduction for indexed cost of acquisition and exemption u/s 54 of the Act in view of the failure of the assessee to comply with the notices and furnish evidence in support of the said claims. During the course of the appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished additional evidence with regard to the said claims and the same was admitted.
5 ITA No.187/Viz/2020, A.Y.2009-10 Gampa Santhi, Vijayawada
As per the copy of the partition deed dated 22.03.2000 furnished by the assessee, the site sold by the assessee during the year was received by her from her grandfather, who acquired the same prior to 01.04.1981. The market value of the site as on 01.04.1981 is therefore required to be adopted as the cost of acquisition. However, the records pertaining to the F.Y 1981-82 are not available with the Sub-