Appeal on Property Sale Capital Gains Discrepancies

The appeal addressed the delay in filing cross objections due to health reasons, which were condoned. The case involved assessing long-term capital gains on property sale, with discrepancies in sale consideration and cost of acquisition. The A.O. disallowed claimed construction costs due to conflicting property descriptions in the sale deed. Discrepancies in sale consideration and building existence led to conflicting interpretations. The tribunal remitted the case for a thorough verification of facts related to sale consideration and construction costs, emphasizing the need for a correct factual position.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing cross objections citing health reasons.
2. Assessment of long-term capital gains on property sale.
3. Disallowance of cost of construction and improvement claimed.
4. Discrepancy in sale consideration and existence of building.
5. Appeal against CIT(A) order on cost of construction and sale consideration.
6. Verification of facts and remittance of case back to AO for reconsideration.

Analysis:
1. The appeal addressed the delay in filing cross objections by the assessee due to health reasons, which was condoned after considering the reasons provided, allowing the cross objections.

2. The case involved the assessment of long-term capital gains on property sale for the assessment year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) re-opened the assessment due to findings during a survey, leading to discrepancies in the sale consideration and cost of acquisition, resulting in the determination of long-term capital gains.

3. The A.O. disallowed the cost of construction and improvement claimed by the assessee, as the property sold was a vacant site according to the sale deed, conflicting with the assessee's argument of an existing building not mentioned in the deed.

4. Discrepancies arose regarding the sale consideration and existence of the building, with various agreements and statements supporting different claims, leading to conflicting interpretations by the A.O., CIT(A), and the parties involved.

5. The appeal against the CIT(A) order focused on challenging the decision regarding the cost of construction and sale consideration. The department contested the allowance of construction costs, while the assessee defended the correctness of the sale consideration and claimed cost of construction.

6. After hearing both parties and reviewing the evidence, the tribunal remitted the case back to the A.O. for a thorough verification of all facts related to sale consideration and cost of construction, emphasizing the need for a complete examination to arrive at a correct factual position. Both parties agreed to this remittance for further consideration.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, highlighting the complexities and discrepancies in the assessment of long-term capital gains and the related aspects of cost of construction and sale consideration, ultimately leading to the decision to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh evaluation.

---