TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1032
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ld. AO is erroneous so as it prejudicial the interest of revenue as per provision of section 263 of the Act. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT (IT), Delhi-1 grossly erred in holding the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT (IT), Delhi-1 grossly erred in setting aside the assessment order passed by the u/s 143(3) without any finding as to how the assessment order passed by the ld AO is erroneous so as it prejudicial the interest of revenue. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT (IT), Delhi-1 grossly erred in holding the order passed by ld. AO is erroneous and prejudiced of revenue particularly when the order passed by ld. AO after due verification and examination of provisions of the law and explanation furnished by the assessee. 7. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing. 8. The petitioner prays for justice & relief." 3. We find that the appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 313 d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al before the Hon'ble Tribunal, along with my affidavit and application for condonation of delay which requires my signature. 7. That after receiving my consent the legal counsel had prepared the appeal form, grounds of appeal and other supporting documents to be submitted with appeal form. That on09.04.2024, I reached India and after discussion and due v e reification of documents, signed the appeal form etc. 8. That there was no deliberate or malafide intention for delay in filing of appeal as due to above bonafide reason as explained above there is delay in filing of appeal. That if the delay is not condoned, great injury would be inflicted, given that the subject matter of the appeal is covered in favour of the assessee and the amount involved in the appeal is very huge. Further I humbly request kindly take a lenient view and dispose-off the matter based on the merits of the matter and not on the basis of technicalities. Sd/- Deponent VERIFICATION Whatever stated above are true and correct as per my information and belief. Nothing has been hided or concealed. So God help me. Place : Jodhpur. Date: Sd/- Deponent "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2012.In compliance to the said notice, the assessee uploaded the reply on 07.03.2024 through ITBA portal attaching copy of bank account statement for the period 01.02.2010 to 31.09.2019, computation of long term capital gain and copy of the agreement of purchase of flat dated 27.12.2012.The ld. CIT (IT) Delhi-1, accordingly required the AO to make necessary verification in respect of the observations made in his order after allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The present appeal is against the said order of ld. CIT (IT), Delhi-1 passed u/s 263 in case of assessee. 6. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted written submissions in support of his case and the same are being reproduced as under :- "1. That at the time of hearing the ld Departmental Representative (CIT DR) had submitted that the indexed cost of acquisition claimed by the appellant is not accordance with provision of section 48 of the Act and also referred decision. In this regard I humbly submits as under: - a. It is submitted that during the assessment proceeding the appellant had explained with evidences that the applicant had acquired the legal rights and interest on such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of allotment and construction by D.D.A, then on the same basis the acquisition of the property was to be related to the date on which the allotment letter was issued. On the basis of its aforesaid observations, the Hon'ble High Court had dismissed the appeal of the revenue. In the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, we are of the considered view that as no infirmity emerges from the order of the CIT(A), who we find had rightly concluded that the date of acquisition of the property under consideration was to be reckoned from the date of the allotment letter i.e 03.12.1999, therefore, we uphold his order." e. Vinod Kumar Jain Vs CIT [344 ITR 501] (Punjab & Haryana High Court) In this judgement, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that for flats allotted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), the holding period should be counted from the date of allotment letter. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) also issued a circular (No. 471, dated 15th October 1986), where it has clarified that for flats under self-financing schemes of the DDA, the holding period shall begin from date of the allotment letter f. That after considering the above facts, docume....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....med by the assessee and in that process ld. AO noted that the assessee claimed excess cost of indexation amounting of Rs. 5,81,368/- and accordingly was not allowed that much excess claim of the assessee. Thus, it was not the case of the ld. PCIT that the ld. AO had not verified the claim of cost of acquisition, but the ld. PCIT intended to get reverified the fact that the since the property was under joint name the loss claimed was attributable to the wife of the assessee or not, and for that he exercised the power under section 263 of the Act. That action of the ld. PCIT is under challenge in this appeal. While passing the impugned order ld. PCIT has not appreciated the fact that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the claim of large refund. Wherein the based on the scope ld. AO had already examined and verified the cost of acquisition including the details of the source thereof. Now what was proposed by way of direction under section 263 of the Act whereby ld. PCIT aims to expand the scope of scrutiny and same is not permitted. Not only that while passing the order the ld. PCIT has not exposed any of the clause of explanation 2 of secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umption by the AO of either the facts or of law, as alleged by the ld. PCIT and therefore, the order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT is set aside and the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 2. Order passed by ld CIT is beyond the jurisdictions (limited scrutiny) a. That in the case of appellant, the appellant had claimed refund of Rs 1,20,66,130/-. as the appellant had sold the flat of amounting to Rs 11,00,00,000/- and the respective buyers had deducted the TDS/TCS amounting to Rs 2,49,81,920/- on higher rate as appellant is NRI. Therefore, the case of applicant had selected for limited security for verification of claim of refund and foreign remittance. b. The ld AO after due verification of 26AS and income disclosed and documentary evidences i.e. bank statement, purchase agreement, confirmation of builders, sale deed, photo of cheque etc furnished by appellant had reached a conclusion that the claim of refund is genuine and also no required for any permission to complete scrutiny from higher authority and accordingly passed the assessment order and accepted the income disclosed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilar nature of issue the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Ajay Agarwal, ITA No 637/JP/2024, dated 08/01/2025, held as under: - 9. ................. While passing the impugned order ld. PCIT has not appreciated the fact that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the claim of large refund. Wherein the based on the scope ld. AO had already examined and verified the cost of acquisition including the details of the source thereof. Now what was proposed by way of direction under section 263 of the Act whereby ld. PCIT aims to expand the scope of scrutiny and same is not permitted. Not only that while passing the order the ld. PCIT has not exposed any of the clause of explanation 2 of section 263 as applicable based on the facts of the case. g. Further also on identical facts, I relied the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench, & other Bench and Hon'ble Orissa High Court which are part of paper book PB Page 2 to 35." 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of ld. CIT (IT), Delhi-1. 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee in the written submission relied on the Circular issued CBDT and the decisions of various Hon'ble High Courts has settled the law on such issue that cost of inflation indexation is to be determined from the date of allotment and not the date of registration of conveyance deed/agreement. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT-3, Vs. Vembo Vaidyanathan (2019) 261 taxman 376 (Bom), wherein the issue raised by the revenue in its appeal before the Hon'ble High Court was, as to whether the Tribunal was justified in reckoning the acquisition of the property from the date of letter of allotment which though did not lead to creation of any proper and effective right over the capital asset, and not from the date on which the "agreement" which spelled out the exact terms and conditions for acquisition was executed. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court, "that the CBDT vide its Circular No. 471, dated 15.10.1996 had clarified that when an assessee purchases a flat to be constructed by Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A) for which allotment letter is issued, date of such allotment would be the relevant date for the purpose of capital gain tax as the date of acqu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge used in Explanation (iii) to section 48 of the Act, which provides for manner of computation of indexed cost of acquisition, it is apparently clear that it refers only to cost of acquisition and not actual payments made by the assessee, hence, there is no merit in the alternate contention of the revenue that the benefit of indexation should be given on the basis of dates of actual payments made by the assessee. We are further of the opinion that the asset is held by the assessee from 7-8- 1993 because when the assessee sold the house property, it did not sell the same without any legal rights of the assessee as an owner thereof, and unless the rights of ownership are transferred, there cannot be any sale and, therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the assessee regarding right being intangible asset and house property being a physical asset. We also find that the issue of indexation, in such circumstances, is directly covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Charanbir Singh Jolly(supra), hence, respectfully following the same, we hold that the assessment order is correct in law. Thus, on merits, the issue is covered in favour of ....