TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1482
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l gain had arisen from the sale of flat of the assessee at Apartment 102, Ist floor, Jer Mantion, 19th Gazder Street, Chira Bazar, Mumbai- 400 002 on 21-5-2007 for a total consideration of Rs. 45 lacs. The assessee had acquired the said flat on 21-5-1957 for a consideration of Rs. 7900/- and adopting the said cost as the base cost on 1-4-1981, the indexed cost of acquisition was worked out by the assessee at Rs. 43,529/-. After deducting the said indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 43,529/- and the value of new flat purchased for Rs. 24,56,420/- from the sale consideration of Rs. 45 lacs, the long term capital gain of Rs. 20,00,051/- was declared by the assessee in his return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the flat as on 1-4-1981 was not made by filing revised return and the time for filing the revised return had already expired, the A.O. declined to entertain the said claim of the assessee and proceeded to work out the long term capital gain at Rs. 32,12,090/- vide his assessment order dated 22-12- 2010 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as under:- "Working of Long Term Capital Gain: Sale on 21.05.2007 of flat at Jen Mansion, Guzdar Street, Chira Bazar, Mumbai -02 (as discussed in para 4.8 above) : Rs. 57,12,039/- Less: Indexed cost(flat purchased on 21.5.1937) 7900 x 551/100(as per statement) : Rs. 43,529/- :Rs. 56,68,510/- Less: Cost of purchased of flat on 11.3.2008 (as per statement of income) : Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) erred in confirming the A,O.'s action of not accepting the full value of the sale consideration at Rs. 45,00,000/- for the sale of the residential flat, as received by the appellant in terms of the sale agreement dated 21.05.2007 and in wrongly adopting a higher valuation on the basis of the Preliminary Valuation Report dated 25.11.2010 by the Departmental Valuation Officer. 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the AC's action in adopting Rs. 5712,039/- as the full value of consideration u/s 50C by wrongly relying on the departmental Valuation Officer's Preliminary Report dated 25.11.2010. 3. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the AC's action of discarding the appellant's claim to substitute the cost of acquisition of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel for the assessee has not pressed ground No. 1 & 2 raised in the appeal of the assessee. The same are accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 5. As regards ground No. 3 to 6, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue raised therein relating to the assessee's claim for deduction on account of indexed cost of acquisition taking fair market value of the property as on 1-4-1981 as the base value was not entertained either by the A.O. or by the ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) as the same was not raised by way of filing a revised return. In this regard, he has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi....