Appeal partially allowed on indexation issue; directions given on valuation, Section 54G claim, and unrecorded cash payment.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the Pr. CIT's order regarding the indexation of the cost of acquisition. It upheld the observations on the failure to refer the valuation of the land, the claim under Section 54G, and the unrecorded cash payment. The AO was directed to re-examine the claim under Section 54G with requisite details and a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to indexation of the cost of acquisition.
2. Failure to refer the valuation of the land to the valuation officer.
3. Claim for deduction under Section 54G of the Income-tax Act.
4. Consideration of unrecorded cash payment in the sale of flats.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Indexation of the Cost of Acquisition:
The Tribunal examined whether the assessee was entitled to indexation of the cost of acquisition of the property sold. The Pr. CIT had concluded that the property was a depreciable asset (a building) and hence not eligible for indexation. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sold land, not a building, and thus, the land, being a non-depreciable asset, was eligible for indexation. The Tribunal set aside the Pr. CIT's order on this issue, restoring the Assessing Officer's (AO) original order.

2. Failure to Refer the Valuation of the Land to the Valuation Officer:
The Pr. CIT observed that the AO had accepted the cost of acquisition of the land as on 01.04.1981 without referring it to the valuation officer, which rendered the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal upheld this observation, citing "Explanation 2(a)" of Sec. 263(1), which deems an order erroneous if it is passed without necessary inquiries or verification.

3. Claim for Deduction Under Section 54G:
The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54G for shifting its industrial undertaking from an urban area to a non-urban area. The Pr. CIT contended that there was no shifting of an industrial undertaking, merely a sale of a closed factory and purchase of another factory, thus disallowing the deduction. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence of shifting the industrial undertaking. The Tribunal concurred with the Pr. CIT's observation but modified the order, directing the AO to re-examine the claim for deduction under Section 54G after obtaining necessary details and providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

4. Consideration of Unrecorded Cash Payment in the Sale of Flats:
The Pr. CIT noted that the AO had failed to consider an impounded document indicating an unrecorded cash payment of Rs. 11 lacs received by the assessee on the sale of flats. The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's observation, agreeing that the AO's failure to consider this document rendered the order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the Pr. CIT's order regarding the indexation of the cost of acquisition and upholding the observations on the failure to refer the valuation of the land, the claim under Section 54G, and the unrecorded cash payment. The AO was directed to re-examine the claim under Section 54G with requisite details and a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

---