TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 852
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntial 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) The learned CIT(A) did not consider any of the arguments advanced by the appellant and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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 of building (B+C) = 42,27,967 (E) Total indexed cost of Land & Building (A+D) = 75,26,805 (F) Sale Proceeds = 90,00,000 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: 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, the cost of fully completed residential building can reasonably be estimated as Rs. 2,053/- per Sq. Metre including the cost of Wood Work, Door Frame, Flooring Sanitary. Electrical fittings, etc. w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 Rounded off to 18,37,600/- Income as returned 51,238 Add: L.T.C.G. 18,37,606 Assessed Income 18,88,840 5. Aggrieved by the order of the assessment in recomputing the LTCG and in denying the benefit of deduction u/s. 54EC of the I.T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Assessing Officer had gathered guideline value from the Sub Registrar, Chennai and also relied on the CPWD rates for construction of building for computation of long term capital gains. According to the Ld. DR the FMV adopted by the Assessing Officer as on 01/04/1981 is acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble 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 submitted that there was no information as regards the fate of computation of LTCG of the impugned property. The liabillity of long term capital gains cannot differ between the co-owners of a property. Even though there is no res judicata in tax proceedings, the principle of....