TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder of re-assessment. The AO adopted cost of acquisition at Rs. 2.48 per sq. yard as against Rs. 8 per sq. yard actually allowed in the original assessment. In addition, the AO also treated an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs and accounted as advance taken from sale of site as cash credit. There are other issues of taxing at normal rate even on the capital gain reworked out and levy of interest. Assessee also contested the issue of reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act even though the learned CIT(A) has not decided the issue. 3. Facts of the case are that an addition of Rs. 1,31,340/- was made being the difference arisen by adopting the cost of indexation as on 1981. In this record, the assessee has submitted his explanation, before the CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... date of acquisition by the assessee herein. Accordingly, the then Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) directed the AO to take the market value as on 01.04.1981 as claimed by the assessee and work out the indexed cost of the land. But there is an error in the modification order dated 18.03.2008 passed by the present AO, which error is separately dealt in by the assessee by filing an application u/s 154, before the AO. The present AO again entertained a doubt with regard to the computation of capital gains and issued a notice u/s 148 on 06.03.2009 and served on 18.03.2008. Again, the AO chose to issue notice u/s 143(2) in responses to which the assessee's representative was present and filed the details. The AO proceeded to complete the re-asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A), Tirupati, the AO made a mistake for which 154 petition has been made and action is pending before the AO. In light of this, the action of the AO in adopting Rs. 1,31,340/- as the difference arisen by adopting the cost of indexation as on 1981 is not approved. 5. With respect to addition of Rs. 3 lakhs received from four persons as advance for sale of site, the learned CIT(A) examined the record and noted that the sales took place in the next year and the advances were converted into sales. Therefore, the advances for sale cannot be treated as sale consideration. Accordingly, he deleted the addition. 6. Aggrieved, the Revenue raised the following four grounds in appeal before us: 1. The lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion and not as advance. 7. On perusing the learned CIT(A) order, we do not find any merit in the Revenue grounds. Hence, Revenue appeal is dismissed. C.O. No. 35/Hyd/2013 8. The assessee has raised a cross objection against reopening of assessment. The CO is belatedly filed with a delay of 323 days. The assessee explained the delay stating that when he approached a counsel for representing the assessee in the appeal filed by him, the counsel advised him to file cross objection against the reopening of assessment, which had been decided by the CIT(A) against the assessee. As the issue goes to the very root of validity of assessment and as we are of the opinion that the explanation given by the assessee is reasonable we condone the delay ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e making the original assessment and hence reopening of assessment was without jurisdiction. 12. The learned DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and stated that reopening was validly done. 13. We have heard both the parties. We find that at the time of assessment all the details have been furnished and the Assessing Officer after taking into account all the details arrived at the capital gains. Further, the computation of capital gain was subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has passed the order and the Department has accepted the same. The original assessment was made accepting the value of land as on 1.4.1981 at Rs. 8 per sq. yard whereas the AO held that another SRO has given the value as on....