TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 836
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 23-10-2013. The concise grounds raised by the assessee read as under: 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) dismissing the appeal by denying the claim of exemption u/s 54F on the entire investment made is contrary to law, erroneous and unsustainable on the facts of the case. 2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had computed capital gains on the consideration of Rs. 2.10 crores received out of the power of attorney given to one P.Vaidyanathan and there was no basis or material to add any further amounts for computation of capital gains. 3. The CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 7560850 to the returned sale consideration by holding that assessee had sold so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntenable in law. 8. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the claim of assessee was in accordance with the provisions of law and the Madras High Court decision in V.R.Karpagam case (373 ITR 127) and hence the denial of exemption on a part of the property was arbitrary and without any statutory basis and hence the exemption u/s.54F is to be granted as claimed by the assessee. 9. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of indexation on the improvement cost of Rs. 128000 incurred by the assessee on land filling and fencing the property in the computation of capital gains. 10. The CIT(A), in any event, ought to have seen that the computation of capital gains returned by the assessee is correct and there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. Assessment Proceedings 3.1 The assessee-HUF computed taxable capital gain of Rs. 2.09 Lacs on sale of various housing plots situated at Thavalakuppam. The sale of plots took place through general Power of Attorney (POA) holder Shri P.Vaidyanathan. The General Power of Attorney was executed on 05.08.2010. The sale proceeds were reflected by the assessee as Rs. 210 Lacs against which commission expenses, indexed cost of acquisition &indexed cost of improvement was claimed. Against resultant capital gain of Rs. 193.93 Lacs, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54 for investment in residential property for Rs. 191.84 Lacs. Thus, the balance amount of Rs. 2.09 Lacs was offered to tax as taxable capital gains. 3.2 It was noted by Ld. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mption on two properties for Rs. 191.84 Lacs. Consideringthe provisions of Sec.54F, Ld. AO restricted the exemption with respect to one house property only. Accordingly, the capital gains were re-computed as Rs. 233.95 Lacs. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 During appellate proceedings, it was submitted by the assessee that entire land to the extent of 1 Kani 70 Kuzhees was sold through power of attorney for sale consideration of Rs. 210 Lacs and no extra consideration flowed to the assessee. The same was evident from the affidavit / statement of POA holder. The POA holder acknowledged payment of Rs. 210 Lacs to the assessee for having sold the entire parcel of land comprising 1 Kani 70 Kuzhees. The Ld. AO went wrong in assuming that the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d enjoyment. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT V/s V.R.Karpagam (337 ITR 127)which considered the amendment brought in to Sec.54F w.e.f. 01.04.2015. 4.2 However, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed AO's finding that only 46808 square feet of land was sold by the assessee through POA holder whereas the remaining areas was sold by the assessee himself since the assessee could not rebut the same with details of sale of plot with period of sale. Further, the objection to valuation of Rs. 550/- per square feet as adopted by Ld. AO was to be rejected since Ld. DVO valued the land at Rs. 552/- per square feet. The plea that Sce.50C would have no application, was to be rejected since the sale was do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could be seen that the assessee, along with another co-owner, has executed General Power of Attorney on 05.08.2010 in favor of Shri P.Vaidyanathan. As per the Schedule, POA encompasses a total extent of land of 1 Kani 70 Kuzhi which has been sub-divided into plots. It further states that total extent of 13747 square feet has been sold by the co-owners earlier and the balance 1 Kani 46 Kuzhi 2 -1/4Veesam is left. Thus, the POA has been executed to that extent. However, as per the receipt dated 22.12.2010, POA is stated to have paid a sum of Rs. 210 Lacs against land admeasuring 1 Kani 7 Kuzhi. Therefore, there is clear contradiction between these two documents and the correct factual matrix is required to be brought on record. To resolve the....