TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune but the issue involved in both the appeals are identical except for the amounts and the assessees and therefore, his arguments will also be common and therefore these two appeals can be heard and disposed of together. We therefore for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose of the two appeals by a consolidated order, but however, proceed with narrating the facts in ITA No.123/PUN/2017 for assessment year 2012-13. 3. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under:- Assessee is an individual stated to be having income from capital gains, bank interest and other sources. The Assessing Officer noted that Assessee had sold immovable property on 30.12.2011 (land at Survey No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same stating that the appellant was not entitled for the said deduction as the consideration was invested in the name of his son i.e. not in the name of the appellant. The assessment was completed on 04/06/2015 thereby making proportionate addition of Rs. 8,64,455/- on account of long term capital gain, which was agreed by the appellant as well. 6. In the first ground of appeal, the appellant has stated the A.O did not consider the cost of acquisition. On perusal of the assessment order, it is noticed that during assessment proceedings the appellant was not prevented from making any such claim before A.O. and he admitted the addition made on account of long term capital gain. In view of this, the additional evidence produced during ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sent appeal. On perusal of the grounds of appeal which are argumentative in nature, it is Assessee's submission that the assessee is an old lady aged 73 years and is stated to be suffering from serious illness because of which delay has occurred in filing the present appeal and therefore, the delay be condoned. Considering the aforesaid facts and in view of the settled law that when substantial justice and technicalities are pitted against each other, then the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, we in the interest of justice, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. On the date of hearing none appeared on behalf of Assessee nor any adjournment application was filed. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-(iii) of the Explanation to Section 48 as an amount which bears to the cost of acquisition the same proportion as the cost inflation index for the year in which the asset is transferred beard to the cost inflation index for the first year in which the asset was held by the Assessee or for the year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1981, whichever is later. It is not the case of the Revenue that the asset sold by the Assessee is not a long term capital asset and the gains arising thereto are not long term capital gains. In such a situation, we are of the view that the capital gains have to be computed after considering the indexed cost of acquisition, which has not been done in the present case. At this juncture, it would be relevant to r....