TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....objections before the DRP, who confirmed the said addition. The AO in the final assessment order considered the correct indexation value of the year of acquisition and revised the addition to Rs.64,60,469. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment in accordance with the directions of the DRP. 3. The only issue contended in this appeal through various grounds raised by the assessee is the cost of acquisition considered by the AO at Rs.49,08,340 as against Rs.70,00,000 considered by the assessee while computing the capital gains. 4. The assessee also raised additional grounds with regard to maintainability of the draft assessment order for opting DRP route for a non-resident for the year under consideration and also for AO not considering the brokerage / selling expenses of Rs.1,55,000 while computing capital gains. 5. The additional grounds raised are pure legal issue, which does not require investigation of new facts. Hence, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), we admit the additional grounds. 6. We notice that as per the Explana....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bills attached 14 JP Lights and Appliances 11,825/- Bills attached 15 Godrej & Boyce 65,757/- Payment receipt attached 16 LG Electronics 25,500/- Bills attached 17 Floor & furnishing 32,000/- Bills attached 18 Veekay Coolers 28,000/- Bills attached 19 Adishwar 35,580/- Bills attached Total 76,20,926/- 9. The assessee though had submitted that he has incurred Rs.76,20,926 towards cost of acquisition, claimed only Rs.70,00,000 while computing the capital gains based on the bank loan availed for the said amount. On perusal of the Sale Deed for purchase of property dated 1.2.2008, the AO noticed that as per the Sale Deed, the fair value of the property was adopted at Rs.36,05,000 on which the assessee paid the stamp duty, whereas the assessee has adopted a value of Rs.49,44,000 as the purchase cost for the purpose of computing capital gains. The AO issued a show cause notice in this regard to the assessee. The assessee in response submitted that the property was originally booked by one Mr. Manish Dokania and Manoj Dokania (assignment holders) with the builder, Larsen & Toubro [L&T] an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... complete details in para 5 & 6 of the draft assessment order. This panel finds no infirmity in the action of the Assessing Officer. Hence, this plea is rejected. c) The plea of the assessee regarding adopting of incorrect cost inflation index by the Assessing Officer, this panel found that AO has rightly dealt the issue and finds no infirmity in the action of the AO. Hence, the plea of the assessee is rejected. d) The assessee contended that Assessing Officer has wrongly taken capital gains offered was Rs.27,41,441/-,whereas the actual capital gains offered in return of income by assessee was only Rs.2,00,425/-. This panel has verified and found that AO has rightly dealt the issue and we did not find infirmity in the action of the AO. Hence this plea of the assessee is rejected. e) Assessee contended that Assessing Officer has computed excess capital gains by not considering Rs.13,39,000/- paid to the assignor towards relinquishing of rights for which cost of inflation works out to Rs.29,06,356/-. This panel has verified this issue and found that AO has correctly dealt the issue by giving reasons in para 8 of the Draft Assessment Order. Hence, this panel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted that as per the registered Sale Deed, the cost of acquisition is only Rs.36,05,000 which has been correctly considered by the AO. The ld. DR also submitted that the amount paid by the assessee to the assignment holders through an unregistered document is done to avoid payment of stamp duty and there is no acquisition of any title by the assessee through unregistered deed. It is submitted by the ld. DR that the amount paid through Assignment Agreement cannot be considered as cost of acquisition. The ld. DR therefore supported the cost of acquisition considered by the lower authorities. 16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. From the perusal of the breakup of the cost acquisition extracted in the earlier part of this order and the assignment agreement it is noticed that the assessee has considered a sum of Rs.49,44,000 paid to the assignment holders as per the assignment agreement dated 01.10.2007 as cost of acquisition. It is also noticed that the assessee has paid Rs.5,98,160 towards covered car park charges, corpus deposit, etc. and also a sum of Rs.1,54,500 as assignment fee to L&T. From these facts, it is clear that the actual o....