TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee had neither purchased the house nor deposited the amount in the capital gain scheme before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1). 3 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is justified in ignoring the specific provisions of section 45(2) of Income-tax Act wherein it is mentioned that "sum deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139" and by holding that assessee had purchased the new asset before filing of return u/s 139 i.e. u/s 139(4) of the Income-tax Act. 4 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is justified in justified in not deciding the ground No.4 of appeal of the assessee before him. Whether the assessee can revise the income through a revised computation of income only and the requirement of filing revised return is not mandatory. 5 The appellant craves the right to alter, amend, add or substitute the grounds of appeal. " 2. Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of Rs.Rs.7,08,754/-filed on 04.03.2009 by the assessee, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Long term capital gains Rs. 3,04,094 2.1 To a query by the AO, regarding cost of acquisition adopted by the assessee as on 01.04.1981, the assessee submitted revised computation of income, computing long term capital gains of Rs.6,83,781/- as under:- [In Rs.] "Income from Capital Gains (Long term) a) Sale of 50% shares Rs. 75,00,000 Less: 50% share of Rs.4,83,839/- in cost of Acquisition of plot=2,41,920/- . (As perRevised valuation report dt.25.11.2010 13,32,980 Less: b)Cost of construction of 2nd floor-471177 during financial year 1990-91 50% share in cost of construction= 235589 Indexed cost of above is Rs. 235589x551/182 7,13,239 20,46,219 54,53,781 Less: Exemption u/s 54 of the I.T. Act 47,70,000 Long Term Capital Gains 6,83,781" 2.2 However, the AO did not accept the aforesaid computation, the assessee having not submitted either copy of purchase deed dated 06.02.1984 of the land by Smt. Kamla Devi from the society nor copy of collaboration agreement entered into with the builder on 10.04.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Income-tax Act on purchase of 1/3rd share in residential Apartment No.802, 8th floor, Block F-1, village Silokhera, Tehsil and District Gurgaon (Haryana) in his revised computation of capital gain enclosed as annexure to this order before the completion of assessment proceedings before Assessing Officer. The section 54(2) says that the amount of long term capital gain should be utilized by assessee for the purchase or construction of new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income u/s 139 shall or be deposited by him before furnishing such return (such deposits being made in any case not later than due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing of return of income u/s (1) of section 139. In the assessee's case, the claim was made after the due date of filing return u/s 139(1) and in a revised computation, before completion of assessment. The appellant had sold her share of property on 24.7.2007 by GPA to Mrs. Hashmi chhabra w/o Shri Vijay chhabra on a sale consideration of Rs.Rs.1.50 crore. She purchased another property of Gurgaon on 11.10.2008 for a consideration of Rs.1.35 crores from Mr. Animesh Narang vide sale d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his wife cost of acquisition will be taken as on 1.4.1981. Therefore, the cost of previous owner in the hands of the assessee will be the cost in the hands of his wife. In view of these facts, it is clear that the cost of acquisition has to be taken as on 1.4.1981. 9. Now, coming to the cost of indexation, in the case of previous owner, the cost of acquisition is to be as on 1.4.1981, it will be illogical to apply the cost indexation with reference to the date on which the assessee became the owner of the property. Therefore, cost of indexation has to be with effect from 1.4.1981, the date on which the cost of acquisition was taken in the hands of the previous owner. In view of these facts, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of learned CIT(A). Our view is supported by the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Manjula J. Shah (supra). 10. Now, coming to second issue, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Miss Jagriti (supra) has held that sub-section (4) of section 139 provides the extension period of limitation as an exception to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 139 of the Act. Sub-sec. (4) was in relation to the time allowed to an a....