TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 792
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Chennai dated 27.08.2018 in I.T.A.No.63/CIT(A)-7/2015-16 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the re-computation of long term capital gains without assigning proper reasons and justification and ought to have appreciated that the re-computation of long term capital gains on various facets was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 3. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the adoption of the cost of acquisition being the Fair Market Value as on 1.4.1981 in the re-computation of long term capital gains as well as went wrong in sustaining the indexation in relation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terpretation of the said provisions of the Act which strict interpretation was consistently negatived in view of the judicial trend in relation thereto. 9. The ACIT failed to appreciate that the technical breach/violation of the conditions prescribed in the provisions of section 54 of the Act should not stand in the way for approving the claim for the said deduction in view of the admitted position of the creation of the new asset, thereby vitiating the related findings in para 4.1.6 of the impugned order. 10. The ACIT failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice would be nullity in law. 11. The Appellant c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on from 01.04.1981 in respect of 1/4th share of property received by the assessee by inheritance. However, for remaining 3/4th share of property, which assessee got right by way of Release Deed dated 16.02.2006, he has allowed indexation benefit from the FY 2006-07 and re-computed indexed cost of acquisition. The AO had also allowed deductions towards re-investment in purchase of another residential house property site to the extent of Rs.18,06,000/- which includes total consideration paid for purchase of property plus Stamp Duty and other incidental expenses. However, disallowed amount claimed to have been incurred for construction of house property on the ground that the assessee could not file any evidences to prove completion of house c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld.CIT(A) has ignored the relevant facts and sustained the additions made by the AO. As regards, deduction claimed u/s.54 of the Act, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to various documents including building permission issued by Corporation of Chennai and EB Card for the new property submitted that the assessee has filed all evidences to prove construction of new residential house property within stipulated date. The AO ignoring all facts simply disallowed amounts spent for construction of house property only on the basis of suspicion and surmise. 6. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A), submitted that as per the provisions of Sec.49 of the Act, cost to the previous owner needs to be considered only, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consideration of Rs.3 lakhs. The assessee has computed cost of acquisition of the property by taking into account the period of asset held by previous owner in respect of whole property including 3/4th share of property acquired by the assessee from other three legal heirs in the year 2006. The AO has allowed indexed cost of acquisition from the year in which the assessee became absolute owner of the property i.e. from 2006 onwards. 8. Having heard both sides, we find that in so far as 1/4th share of property is concerned, the assessee is acquired right over the property by inheritance as per provisions of Sec.49 of the Act and thus, he is entitled to claim the benefit of indexation from the period the previous owner held the property or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g amount of Rs.71 lakhs for construction of house property, for which, the assessee has produced necessary evidences, including the 'Building Permission' issued by Corporation of Chennai, 'Planning Permission' issued by Corporation of Chennai, 'Estimate' for construction of residential building and relevant EB card for new building. The assessee had also obtained Valuation Report from approved Valuer along with photos of the new building and claimed that he has spent remaining amount for construction of house property within three years from the date of sale of original asset. We find that the assessee has obtained Demolition & Re-construction Permission' from Corporation of Chennai on 15.05.2012 and also obtained 'Building Plan Permission'....