TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Valuer determining the value of the property on 01.04.1981 u/s 49(1) of the Act. It was his submission that the Assessing Officer had not accepted the submission of the assessee for considering the indexed-cost of the property as on 01.04.1981 as in the Return of Income filed by the assessee the assessee himself has claimed index cost as on 24.05.1993. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee has changed hisown stand without any proof or explanation. Therefore, it was his submission that the index cost as on 01.04.1981 should be considered while determining the capital given on sale of house property. Further, the AR of the assessee submitted that the provisions of section 50C does not apply in the case of the assessee when the assessee takes benefit u/s 54 of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that as the assessee has claimed benefit u/s 54 of the Act, the actual sale consideration stated in the registered documents should be considered as the sale consideration for exempt u/s 54 of the Act. For this, he relied upon the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Stamp Authorities of the said property on the date of sale was Rs. 1,73,42,754/- is also not in dispute. In the Return of Income, the assessee has shown Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 65,03,475/- in respect of the above sale of residential house by deducting Rs. 44,96,525/- from Rs. 1,10,00,000/- and claimed the said Long Term Capital Gain as exempt u/s 54 on account of investment of Rs. 66,11,670/- in acquiring a new residential house. The assessee claimed indexed-cost of Rs. 44,96,525/- in the Return of Income by showing the date of acquisition of the said property on 24.05.1993. 5. During the course of the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3), the assessee filed a revised calculation of capital gain as under:- Particulars Index Amount Sales Proceeds 632 Rs.1,73,42,754/- (2009-10) Sales consideration received Rs. 1,10,00,000/- Less:- Cost of purchases 17,36,000 valuation on dated 01.04.1981 (17,36,000/- * 632/100 Net 100 Rs.1,09,71,520/- Rs. 63,71,234/- Less:- &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, the CIT(A) has also not accepted the additional cost of Rs. 6,00,000/- for acquisition of new residential house because in his opinion renovation of new house is not acceptable in absence of proper material. 10. We find that the Assessing Officer observed in the assessment order as under:- "From the facts narrated in the sale deed of house property situated at Polo Ground, Udaipur it is noticed that Dr. Mahendra Singh Gambhir father of the assessee purchased a plot admeasuring 13664.6 sq. ft. situated at Polo ground, Udaipur from Udaipur Development authority on 13.09.1969 and constructed a house thereupon. After the death of Dr. Mahendra Singh Gambhir the property devolved amongst his wife Smt. Satwant Kaur w/o Dr. Mahendra Singh and his two sons' viz. Shri Dhanvir Singh s/o Dr. Mahendra Singh Gambhir and Shri Parvinder Singh s/o. Dr. Mahendra Singh Gambhir. As per oral agreement the property was divided in three parts amongst the three legal heirs and everyone took the possession of his share. To avoid any dispute in future all the three legal heirs decided to write down the contents of oral agreement on 24.05.1993. Therefore the assessee had shown cost of acquisition at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue addition to the residential house and also it is a capital expenditure, therefore, can be added to the cost of purchase of new residential house. We find that the additional cost of Rs. 6,00,000/- claimed by the assessee was not accepted by the lower authorities on the ground that evidence in respect of the same was not produced before them. We find that no evidence could either be produced before us. Further, also no details as to how the payments were made in respect of the above alleged renovation expenditure was made was brought on record either before the lower authorities or before us. In absence of the same, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities in respect of this part of the issue. 13. Further, the AR of the assessee also contended before us that while allowing deduction u/s 54 of the Act from Long Term Capital Gain Section 50C is not applicable. The AR of the assessee relied upon the order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Gouli Mahadevappa v. ITO, [2011] 128 ITD 503 (Bang.), 14. We find that the above contention of the AR is devoid of any merit and the decision relied upon is distinguishable and does not supp....