2020 (9) TMI 411

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the assessee was converted to residential complex in which the ratio of division between the owner and the developer was fixed at 59:41 and the assessee to receive 24100 sq. ft of constructed area. During the post search enquiries, the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income of Rs. 1.00 crore on the basis of information provided by Shri P.Rajasekhar Rao, the builder, but subsequently retracted from the statement and did not file the return of income as admitted in the statement dated 12/05/2009. The assessee filed return of income admitting capital gain of Rs. 40,26,784/- on 22.11.2010 subsequent to the show cause notice issued by the AO on 15.11.2010. The assessee has computed the long-term capital gain as under: Cost of Apartments received   1,26,50,000 Date of Purchase of land 17.4.1964   The area of the land purchased 2080 sq.ft   Land available after disposal in the past 1954.30 sq.yards   Total land handed over to builder 1954.30 sq.yard   Less:Land used for construction of owner's flat 797.57 sq.yards   Land apportioned to builder (in sq.y) 1147.73 sq.yard   Land appor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../s 54F which was not allowed by the AO. 3.1 Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT (A) and the learned CIT (A) upheld the sale consideration of Rs. 1,48,40,450/-. The ld.CIT (A) declined to entertain the claim of the assessee with regard to allowing the indexed cost of existing building on the said land as on 1.4.1981 in the absence of any mention in the JDA and non-furnishing of any proof. The Ld.CIT(A) allowed the deduction u/s 54F to the extent of Rs. 22,80,915/- as against the claim of the assessee for an amount of Rs. 49.76 lakhs. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) assessee the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal and raised the following grounds of appeal: "1) The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the appellant. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the capital gain arising on entering into the development agreement is taxable for the assessment year 2009-10. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the sale consid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ceived the built up area of 23000 sq. ft, the cost of which needs to be taken as sale consideration for computing the capital gains in the hands of the assessee, instead of 24,100 sq. ft as per JDA. Out of the total area of Rs. 24,100 sq.ft, 1100 sq. ft was not actually received by the assessee. Therefore, submitted that both the learned CIT (A) and the AO have erred in taking the market value for the entire constructed area as per JDA instead of the actually received by the assessee. On a query, from the Bench, the learned AR submitted that the sum of Rs. 550/- per sq. ft was arrived on estimation basis in the absence of market information from the SRO. 8. On the other hand, the learned DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case the AO has taken the sale consideration as per the books of the developer of the project proportionately to the share of the assessee and excluded the administrative expenses and worked out the sum of Rs. 1,48,40,450/-. The contention of the assessee is to adopt the cost of construction at Rs. 550/- per sq. ft for 23000 sq. feet against the proportiona....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see with the JDA and the builder and decided the issue on merits after giving opportunity to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee on this issue is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Ground No.6 is related to deduction u/s 54F of the I.T. Act. The Ld.CIT (A) allowed the deduction of Rs. Rs. 22,80,850/- against the claim of Rs. 49,76,400/- by the assessee in Para 5.3.11 which reads as under: "5.3.11. The third issue to be decided is the deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The appellant argued that he has retained 4147 sq.ft for his residence on 1st Floor. The appellant further argued that an amount of Rs. 26,95,550/- was expended in further improving the property. further improving the property. Except arguing the case for expenditure, the Authorized Representative of the appellant has not furnished any material to support his claim. There is no dispute regarding the eligibility of claim u/s.54F. The only contention is the quantum of allowance. The Assessing Officer has allowed the value of Rs. 7,42,022/- being one unit of house out of 20 units as against the total cost of project of Rs. 1 ,48,40,450/- (1,48,40,450120 = 7,42,02.2). There is no material before me to come ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llowed the deduction @Rs. 550/- per sq feet for 4147 square feet as per the sale consideration claimed by the assessee. Since we have remitted the issue of sale consideration to the file of the AO, we direct the AO to allow the deduction as per the sale consideration determined by the AO in ground No.3&4 of this order. ITA No.712/Hyd/2018 13. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld.CIT (A) against the order of the AO passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act. In this assessee, the assessment was completed originally u/s 143(3) of the Act, by an order dated 24/12/ 2010 and determined the total income of Rs. 1,43,78,358/-. Out of total income determined by the AO, the long term capital gain was determined by the AO at Rs. 1,31,90,199/-. The assessment was reopened subsequently for verification of capital gains to be assessed under short term or under long term capital gains. Therefore, the AO believed that the income had the escaped assessment and accordingly reopened the assessment and issued the notice u/s 148. However, at the end, the AO did not find any mistake in the assessment of long-term capital gain and thus accepted the long-term ....