Tribunal adjusts cost, approves some expenses, denies new deduction plea.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, correcting the indexation cost computation by considering the year of acquisition instead of the year of gift, partially allowing the claimed commission expenditure, and rejecting the new plea for deduction under section 54 due to lack of prior presentation before lower authorities.

---

---

Issues:
1. Incorrect computation of indexation cost of acquisition of property acquired through a gift.
2. Disallowance of expenditure claimed as commission paid to the agent.
3. Claim for deduction under section 54 for payment made towards furniture and fixtures.

Issue 1: Incorrect computation of indexation cost:
The appellant acquired a property through a registered gift deed and claimed indexation cost under section 49(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the AO and LD. CIT (A) calculated the indexed cost from the year of gift instead of the year of acquisition by the previous owner. The Tribunal found this calculation erroneous and directed the AO to compute the cost of acquisition from the year of acquisition in 1988, not the year of the gift in 2008. Therefore, ground no. 1 of the appellant's appeal was allowed.

Issue 2: Disallowance of expenditure claimed as commission:
The appellant claimed an expenditure of Rs. 5,00,000 as commission paid to the agent for the property transfer. The AO disallowed the claim due to lack of documentary evidence, except for an affidavit. The Tribunal considered the prevailing practice of using real estate agents for such transactions and allowed the expenditure at 2% of the sale consideration, as it is a reasonable claim and necessary for property transfer. Hence, ground no. 2 was partly allowed.

Issue 3: Claim for deduction under section 54:
The appellant sought a deduction under section 54 for payment made towards furniture and fixtures in addition to the new house property. However, this claim was not raised before the lower authorities, and the Tribunal rejected the new plea as it required investigation of new facts not presented earlier. The appellant was not permitted to introduce a new case at this stage, and the plea was rejected.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the appellant, correcting the computation of the indexation cost, partially allowing the claimed expenditure as commission, and rejecting the new plea for deduction under section 54 due to lack of prior presentation before the lower authorities.

---