TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 150
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In contrast, the certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A), reflects a valuation significantly higher than the Ready Reckoner Rate adopted by the registered valuer of the assessee and mentions the market rate instead of the stamp duty value. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in low, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in incorrectly allowing the assessee's full claim under section 54 of the Act, disregarding the fact that the property was jointly held with her son-in-law. As per section 54, deduction is available only for the assessee's share in the new property, and the AO had rightly restricted the deduction to 50% based on joint ownership. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CITIA) has erred in passing the order without waiting for the AO's remand report, despite the fact that a request for the same was made on 24.11.2024. No follow-up reminder was issued, and the order was passed hastily on 30.01.2025, without granting the AO sufficient time to respond, which resulted into an erroneous conclusion based on unverified claims?" 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e AO allowed only 50% of deduction is not supported by any evidence since the purchase agreement of the new property does not specify any percentage of ownership between the assessee and her son in law. Assessee further submitted the out of the total consideration of Rs. 4,00,84,000/- the assessee has invested Rs. 3,67,94,500/- which is more than 85% of the cost of the new asset and, therefore, the assessee should be allowed deduction u/s. 54 for the amount actually invested. With regard to the AO substituting the stamp duty value of the property sold as on 01.04.2001 as the cost of the acquisition, the assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the AO should have made a reference to Department Valuation Officer (DVO). The assessee in this regard further submitted that, the valuation report is obtained from the government registered valuer by the assessee and that the AO rejected the said valuation report to substitute the same with the ready reckoner value. The assessee also submitted that the AO cannot summarily reject the valuation report without referring to the DVO by placing reliance on various judicial pronouncements. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e AO and the appellant on the quantum of deduction claimed u/s. 54 of the Act on the proportionate investment made in the new asset. The appellant claimed the entire amount invested by her in the new asset as deduction u/s. 54, whereas the AO allowed only 50% of the investment since the property (new asset) was purchased by the appellant along with her son-in-law. The AO had not raised any dispute in the purchase consideration, associated expenditure and the amount of investment made by the appellant in the new asset. Further, the appellant had also submitted a copy of registered rectification deed executed reflecting the proportionate share in the new asset and also submitted a copy of certificate issued by the Stamp Valuation Authority (SRO, Andheri, Mumbai) mentioning the FMV of the original asset as on 2001 at Rs. 1,70,61,370/- during the appeal proceedings. After accepting the additional evidences, the submissions and the additional evidences filed by the appellant were forwarded to the AO calling for his comments and a remand report. Even after giving sufficient opportunities, the AO neither responded nor submitted the remand report. 5.3.5. As far as the claim of ded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eady reckoner value and that the Ld. CIT(A) has heavily relied on the certificate from stamp valuation authority submitted as additional evidence by the assessee. The Ld. DR also submitted by the certificated relied on by the Ld. CIT(A) was not verified by the AO and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) accepting the valuation based on the certificate is not correct. With regard to the ground of deduction u/s. 54 allowed by the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. DR submitted that the exemption is intended for the assessee to invest in new residential property for her own benefit and not if she buys property for somebody else. The Ld. DR further submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the amended purchase deed the submitted for the first time before which is an afterthought, by the assessee to claim full deduction u/s. 54. The Ld. DR submitted a detailed written submission in support of the above contentions which has been taken on record. 5. The Ld. AR on the other hand, submitted that the assessee has lawfully claimed the deduction u/s. 54 to the extent of the amount invested by her in the purchase of new property. Our attention in this regard, is drawn to the capital gain working submitted by the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, valuation before of the property substantiating the value as on 01.04.2001. The Ld. CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee after considering the various submissions made by the AO along with the documentary evidences. The Ld. CIT(A) before concluding the appellate proceedings called for a remand report from the AO and since the AO did not submit any response the Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue in favour, of the assessee after considering the merits. As already mentioned the AO in his finding has not disputed the fact that the assessee has paid majority of the consideration towards acquisition of the property, but has restricted the deduction for the only reason that the assessee co-owns the property with her son in law. Section 54 provides for deduction from the capital gains if the assessee purchases or constructs a new property and the quantum of deduction is amount of capital gain or the cost of the new residential house whichever is lower. From the perusal of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) it is clear that the Ld. CIT(A) has examined the various documentary evidences including the amended purchase deed before giving relief to the assessee. Accordingly, in our considered view there ....