AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s. 251(2) of the IT Act, 1961 for enhancing the selling cost of Basement of property, A-140, Defence Colony, New Delhi to Rs. 1,58,25,000/- as against actual sale of Rs. 11,00,000/-. Thus, an addition of Rs. 1,20,82,920/- has been made as against loss of Rs. 15,58,784/-." 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeal) has erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 3,10,000/- made by the learned Assessing Officer on account of cash deposits in the Bank and ignoring the cash withdrawal from the same Bank. 2. The facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was centralized with Central Circle-11, New Delhi consequent upon a search & seizure operation on Tulip Group carried out on 24th & 25th September, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee was the same as he received at the time of transfer in his name. The appellant received a consideration of Rs. 11,00,000/- for sale of basement of this property and while computing capital gain arising out of this property, the cost of acquisition was computed on the higher side and accordingly the assessee computed a loss on account of sale of property at Rs. 15,33,480/-. In the course of assessment proceedings, the cost of acquisition had been worked out by applying the value as on the date of transfer of property in the name of assessee and worked out to Rs. 90,280/- (2,13,050/4x480/281). As the appellant had not invested any funds on the cost of construction, the cost of acquisition of this property was taken at Rs. 90,280/- and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sale of the same property to the same person Shri Naveen Goel, D-386, Defense Colony for a sum of Rs. 2.11 crores for the second floor. The ld. CIT(A) assumed valuation of basement for Rs. 2.11 crores and reduced by 25% to arrive at reasonable value of sale consideration by stating that rebate is considered judicious also in view of the fact that utility of second floor is slightly better and command better price than the basement floor. Thus after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee, he made assessment by making addition of Rs. 1,20,82,920/- in the capital gain computed by the Assessing Officer. 4. During the assessment proceedings, the AO also found cash deposit in bank account for Rs. 3,10,000/-. According to the AO, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifted to the assessee. The property was constructed after the gift made by Col. Ravi Bedi and Col. H.S. Bedi to the assessee in 2003-04. Thus, the notice issued by the CIT(A) u/s. 251(2) enhancing the cost of the selling price is unreasonable and unjustified especially when the appeal is made by the assessee before the CIT(A). Thus, the acquisition cost taken by the Assessing Officer as Rs. 92,280/- is not correct whereas the cost of construction of the basement is Rs. 11,84,000/- as valued by the registered government valuer. 6. Similarly with respect to cash deposit in the bank account, it was submitted that the assessee has withdrawn cash from bank and deposited it into the bank account frequently and also submitted the cash flow stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 31st day of December, 1969, the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, as increased by the cost of any improvement of the assets incurred or borne by the previous owner or the assessee, as the case may be. Explanation.-In this sub-section the expression "previous owner of the property" in relation to any capital asset owned by an assessee means the last previous owner of the capital asset who acquired it by a mode of acquisition other than that referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) or clause (iv) of this subsection. 9. The learned CIT(A) issued notice u/s. 251(2) regarding enhancement in the sale consideration for th....