2020 (4) TMI 852

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gain of Rs. 18,37,600/- in respect of sale of residential building in Chennai. 2) The learned CIT(A) erred in summarily rejecting the arguments of the appellant and the Valuation Report filed by the appellant w.r.t fair market value of the property as on 01/04/1981. 3) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the valuation by the Registered Valuer is also one of the options available to arrive at the fair market value as on 01-04-1981. 4) The learned CIT(A) ought to have given credence to the affidavit filed by the appellant in respect of cost of the building and improvements thereon. 5) The learned CIT(A) erred in not taking cognizance of the valuation reports filed by the appellant. 6)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 (A) Indexed cost in the year of sale 6,63,750*497/100 = 32,98,838 The building was constructed by Late Dr. M.G. Krishnan in the financial year 78-79. The approximate estimated cost of construction in the Fin. year 80-81 is Rs. 400/Sq. Ft. Total plinth are of the building = 1400 Sq. Ft. Estimated cost of construction 1400*400 = 5,60,000/- (B) Indexed cost in the year of sale F.Y. 05-06 5,60,000*497/172= 27,83,200/- An amount of nearly Rs. 5 lakhs was spent on the building for major repairs due to leakage and for changing of wardrobes and a few doors and windows during the Fin. Year 1989-90. (C) Indexed cost in the year of sale F.Y. 05-06 5,00,000*497/172 = 14,44,767 (D) Total indexed cost ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....906 Indexed cost of land sold = 51,906 * 497/100 = 2,57,973 The sale consideration for land as per sale deed is Rs. 34,55,925/- Hence LTCG on Land is as below:   Sale proceeds 34,55,925/-   Less: Indexed cost of land sold 2,57,973/-   L.T.C.G. on Land 31,97,951 (A)   The value of the building as per sale deed is mentioned as Rs. 55,44,075/- and area of the building is 1400 Sq.Ft. The building has been constructed during FY 80-81. The assessee has not adduced any evidence in support of her claim for cost of construction @ Rs. 400/- per Sq. Ft. As per the CPWD rates the cost of structure is approximately Rs .684 per Sq. Metre. Since the building is a residential house, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cept the assessee's contention regarding repairs and the claim of repairs is not considered. 10. The assessee has contended that she has invested Rs. 5,00,000/- in REC Bonds and claimed exemption from L.T.C.G. The assessee has been allotted the bonds only on 31/03/2008 and is beyond the period with in which the investment should have been made as mentioned in sec. 54EC of the Act. Hence the claim for exemption u/s. 54EC is not allowed. 11. The L.T.C.G. on sale of the land and building is computed as below. L.T.C.G. on Land (mentioned as 'A' in para 9) 31,97,951 L.T.C.G. on Land (mentioned as 'B' in para 9 41,52,475 Total L.T.C.G. 73,50,426 Share of the assessee (1/4th of 73,50,426) = 18,37,606 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lly submissions reiterated before the income tax authorities. Further, the learned AR had produced a copy of assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act of one of the co-owners of the impugned property wherein computation of LTCG by co-owner (which is identical to computation made by assessee in this case) was accepted by the AO. 7. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 without disclosing the long term capital gain. Based on AIR information, the assessment was taken up for scrutiny. It was further submitted that the FMV adopted by the assessee as on 01/04/1981 for the purpose of computing long term capital gains was purely on an estimate basis. It was submitted that the Asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pleted u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act by accepting the computation of long term capital gains made by the co-owner (Shri Thinkal Govind Kumar). In the case of Shri Thinkal Govind Kumar, the assessment was taken up for scrutiny based on AIR information that he had sold an immoveable property at Chennai on 05/10/2005. The computation of long term capital gains calculated by the Shri Thinkal Govind Kumar (one of the co-owners of the said property at Chennai) was accepted at Rs. 3,68,299/- in the assessment order completed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act (order dated 30/09/2008). In the hands of the other co-owners of impugned property, namely, Smt. Indira Krishnan (mother of the assessee) and Shri K. Krishnan (brother of the assessee), the learned DR....