2025 (8) TMI 1188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s 'the Act'). 2. This matter was earlier decided ex-parte by this Tribunal vide order dated 22.07.2024 and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed for the reason that no compliance was made by the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee had filed a Miscellaneous Application which was allowed vide order MA No.132/Ahd/2024 in ITA No.927/Ahd/2023 dated 29.04.2025 and the matter was recalled for fresh hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 31.03.2017 declaring income of Rs. 25,37,500/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had sold a non-agricultural land, in which he was a 1/4th co-own....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Land for the construction of the residential house before the filling of the return under section 139 and thereby denying the exemption under section 54F of the Act. 6. The assessee has also raised an additional ground which reads as under: - "Ground No.2 In arriving at the Capital Gains, the indexed cost of Rs. 1,08,93,828.00 has not been considered, thereby, resulted in capital gains of Rs. 91,06,172.00 in place of Rs. 2,00,00,000.00 on account of error on part of appellant as well as not guided by the Ld. Assessing Officer." 7. Shri Rohan Thakkar, the Ld. AR of the assessee, submitted that the assessee had disclosed Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of property by considering the entire sale consideration as capital gain. He....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rds email dated 29.12.2017 sent by the assessee, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the said mail was sent to the AO at 10.43 PM on 29.12.2017, which was after completion of the assessment in this case. The Ld. Sr. DR further submitted that no deposit in the capital account was made by the assessee at all. Therefore, the alternate contention that the amount was utilised within the due date under Section 139(4) of the Act was not acceptable. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. The assessee has taken an additional ground regarding deduction of cost of acquisition and cost of improvement while computing the capital gain on sale of property. From the working of capital gain, it is found that the entire sale consideration of Rs. 2 Crores wa....