TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 455
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-23(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. Revenue has raised the following grounds:- 1."Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id.CIT(A) has erred in accepting and allowing the claim u/s 54 at the appellate stage under Rule 46A, even when the assessee had made no claim u/s 54 in the ITR ad computation on income filed for the relevant Assessment Year ?" 2."Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in accepting the claim u/s 54 on sale of two house properties even when the section clearly mentions the sale consideration of "a house property" can be claimed under LTCG exemption if the consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2016 stating that he had not made any such transaction for A.Y.2011-12 and that the said transaction might have been wrongly reflected by using his PAN and requested the ld. AO accordingly to kindly re-check with the Registrar of Assurance. The assessee further stated that the said transactions might belong to Babar Estate Pvt. Ltd., and they have been already scrutinized for the relevant year and also enclosed copy of the assessment order before the ld. AO. Accordingly, the ld. AO sought to verify with the office of Joint Sub-Registrar (MSD) Andheri-4 by issuing notice u/s.133(6) of the Act on 15/12/2010 seeking details of property transaction done by the assessee. The information was received from Sub-Registrar Office vide letter dated 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement registered on 10/12/2010 and that the wife of the assessee could not explain the source of investments. It was further observed that the copy of the agreement filed by wife of assessee during the course of assessment proceedings contain purchase value of property at Rs. 6.03 Crores as against Rs. 4.10 Crores reported in AIR Information. Since, the wife could not explain the source of investment, 50% value was added as unexplained investment u/s.69 in her hands and balance 50% was sought to be taxed in the hands of the assessee being a joint owner. This is in connection with the purchase of property at Crown Palace, 23rd Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400 005. The ld. AO observed that assessee also failed to explain the source of investmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the said addition as under:- a) The assessee jointly alongwith his wife had purchased flat No.502, admeasuring 970 sq.ft, 30th Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai on 26/11/2007 for a consideration of Rs. 105,05,000/- from Grace Property Developers. The said property was sold by the assessee for Rs. 6,03,00,000/- alongwith his wife jointly. The sale proceeds of the property was re-invested in a property situated at Crown Palace, 23rd Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400 005 for Rs. 6,03,00,000 jointly with his wife. The assessee filed the details of investments made in Crown Palace together with its respective concerns in the form of additional evidences and requested the ld. CIT(A) to admit the same in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claim of the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) by also placing the reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., reported in 349 ITR 336 (Bom) admitted all those additional evidences and granted relief to the assessee. 3.7. With regard to another property situated at Flat No.502, 30th Road, Bandra West, Mumbai, the ld. CIT(A) on perusal of various additional evidences filed by the assessee observed that this property was purchased jointly by the assessee with his wife on 26/11/2007 for total consideration of Rs. 105,05,000/- from Grace property developers and that the same was sold during the year for a total consideration for Rs. 6,03,00,000/-. The ld. CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-invested in purchase of new house at Crown Palace, Bandra West, the assessee would be entitled for exemption u/s.54 of the Act on sale of second property also. 4. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 5. The aforesaid facts narrated in details remain undisputed and hence the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. We find that the ld. AO in the entire remand report had ultimately concluded that assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s.54 of the Act in the instant case as he had sold two properties and re-invested in one residential house. We find that no comments were made on the facts of the case together with the various additional evidences submitted by the assessee in the remand report of the ld. AO. Accor....