2014 (8) TMI 1235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5-04-2009 declaring income of Rs. 7,82,950/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 30-12-2009 and total income was determined at Rs. 45,26,558/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 30-11- 2010 allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and raised the following grounds: "1(ii). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,43,606/- on account of long term capital gain on sale of godown situated at Cuttak. 1(ii). The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the facts that withou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ked out the long term capital gain at Rs. 44,83,180/- and after giving the credit for the capital gain of Rs. 7,39,574/- shown by the assessee, the balance amount of Rs. 37,43,606/- was added to the total income. Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and the remand report received from AO deleted the addition by holding as under:- "4.3. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submissions of the appellant, the assessment order and remand report. The appellant had constructed the godown during April 1995-November, 1996. The godown was rented out to HLL and the rent from the godown is also declared in the return from AY 1998-99 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....He thus supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The fact that the godown was constructed in F.Y. 1995-96 is not in dispute. The dispute is about the cost of construction. Assessee after considering the cost of acquisition at Rs. 27 lacs had worked out the capital gains which was not acceptable to AO, Ld. CIT(A) while allowing the appeal of Assessee has noted that the valuation report of the valuer had also estimated the cost of construction of the godown at Rs. 54 lacs and therefore the Assessee's share of ½ worked out to Rs. 27 lacs and thus he has considered the cost of acquisition of Rs. 27 lacs considered by Assessee to be in order. Before us, Revenue has not ....