TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l dated 06/04/2022 was passed ex-parte and it was contended by the assessee in MA filed that he was not aware of the preponement of the date of hearing of the case, for which he could not appear on the date of hearing and resultantly, the order passed by the Tribunal was ex-parte. That, after hearing the submissions, the Tribunal had recalled its earlier order and that is how, the case has come up before the present bench. ITA No.2127/PUN/2017 - By Revenue 3. First we shall take up the Revenue's appeal in ITA No.2127/PUN/ 2017 for A.Y. 2014-15 for adjudication as per the following grounds of appeal:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing Rs. 17,00,000/- being amount of commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 29/08/2016 passed u/sec.143(3) of the Act determining total income at Rs. 14,11,34,600/-. While doing so, the AO made several disallowances. The brief background of the disallowances is as under:- During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had sold immovable property being land admeasuring 02 acres situated at S.No.59/1/3 to one Mr. Valiullah Rahmen Shariff for a consideration of Rs. 14,64,48,000/- which was received in the form of Rs. 10 crores by cheque and 26000 sq.ft. builtup constructed area. While computing the capital gains, the assessee claimed (i) commission expenses of Rs. 17,00,000/- as cost of sale, (ii) indexed cost of improvement of Rs. 35....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as deduction while computing the cost of sale of land. The AO had disallowed the same for want of details and confirmation of the payments. However, before the ld. CIT(A), assessee submitted that the expenses being share of stamp duty expenses as borne by the assessee. This contention of the assessee was accepted by the ld.CIT(A) without examining any evidence etc. We have perused the order of the ld. CIT(A) and therein, there is no discussion as to the evidences/documents furnished before him by the assessee demonstrating the share of stamp duty expenses. We further observe that the ld. CIT(A) in his order is absolutely silent as to how share of stamp duty expenses would be allowable while computing the capital gains. At the time of hea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rove the genuineness of the expenditure claimed towards indexed cost of improvement. In this case, the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the expenditure and, therefore, it was not correct, judicially, for ld. CIT(A) allowing the indexed cost of improvement made to the asset sold. We do not find any merit in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and the same is reversed. Ground No.2 of appeal of the Revenue stands allowed. 8. Regarding the allowing of exemption u/s 54F, the findings of the ld. CIT(A) is devoid and bereft of any merit allowing benefit of exemption u/sec. 54F of the Act, which is therefore reversed and accordingly, the ground of appeal no.3 filed by the Revenue stands allowed. 9. As regards deduction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the financial year in which the original asset or assets are transferred and in the subsequent financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees. ......... 10. The legislature has chosen to remove the ambiguity in the proviso to Section 54EC(1) of the Act by inserting a second proviso with effect from 1.4.2015. The memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 also states that the same will be applicable from 1.4.2015 in relation to assessment year 2015-16 and the subsequent years. The intention of the legislature probably appears to be that this amendment should be for the assessment year 2015-2016 to avoid unwanted litigations of the previous years. Even otherwise, we do not wish to read anything....