TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter 'the Act'). 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) revising the assessment framed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act for claiming higher cost of acquisition and excess indexation cost. For this assessee has raised following four grounds: - "1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax erred in setting aside the order passed by the Income-tax Officer tinder section 143(3) and directing the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order. 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that Assessing Officer calculated Long term capital loss at Rs. 29,63,637/- after verifying the evidence placed on record. 3. He further erred iii not considering the evidence plac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- as against disclosed by an assessee and adopted by AO during the assessment at Rs. 53,69,696/-/- and also indexing from FY 1994-95 as against indexation from FY 2000-01. Accordingly, he directed to the AO to pass a fresh assessment order in term of the revision order under section 263 of the Act. 4. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed copies of balance sheet for the year ended 31-03-1995, 31-03-1996, 31-03-1997, 31-03-1998, 31-03-1999, 31-03-2000, 31-03-2001, 31-03-2002, 31-03-2003, 31-03-2004, 31-03-2005, 31-03-2006, 31-03-2007 and the total purchase price is Rs. 53,69,696/-, which reads as under: - Date Opening Balance Details of pament made Closing balance Cheque ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowed from FY 2000-2001 for the computation of indexed cost of acquisition property. The CIT(A) adjudicated both the issues and allowed indexation from the date of agreement i.e. 12.11.1994 vide its appellate order at Para 8.5 as under: - "8.5 In the above matter, I find that vide an amendment to original agreements letter, the developer M./s. Choudhury & Choudhry (India) Ltd., through another agreement cum-allotment letter dated 14.11.1996 informed that Bombay Municipal Corporation has not given permission to build 7th and 8th floors wherein flat nos. 81,82,83 and 84 were to be situated. Therefore, construction of 7th & 8th floors cannot be carried out. However, the developer MIs. Choudhury & Choudhury (India) Ltd., allotted Row House No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this regard the appellant has claimed payment of Rs. 53,69,696/- for the three row houses 10A, 10B and 11B including various amenities in these row house. The details of payments are listed as under: Payments for Row houses along with amenities Payments for Row houses along with amenities Dates of payment Nature Amount 5,00,000 27.10.1994 Cheque 22,00,000 12.11.1994 Cheque 22,00,000 12.11.1994 Cheque 22,00,000 25,06,1996 Cheque 1,68,864 25.06.1996 Total payments for Row houses including amenities 50,68,846 03.04.2000 Stamp duty 1,45,250 28.04,2000 Registration fees 4,550 07.12.2006 Entrance fee 1050 17.02.2007 Member....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce to the above we would like to state that vide allotment letter dated 120 November, 1994 we have allotted a flat no. 71 & 72 to Miss. Veeno S. Johan and and Flat No. 81 to 84 to Mrs. Malt! S. Johari. Thereafter, vide our letter dated 14.111996 we had change the said allotment in place of flat no. 81 to 84 and 71 & 72 to Row House No. IOA & 108 to Mrs. Malti S. Johari, Row House No. I IA to Miss Veena S. Johari & 118 to Mrs. Malti S. Johari for a consideration of Ps. 11.00 lakh each totaling to Ps. 44.00 lakhs as per the Agreement of Sale dated 1 I" April 2000. An amount of Ps. 30.00 lakhs received from both the customer for providing additional amenities and alternation in structure as per their requirement. In view of the above we st....