TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs Monitoring System (NMS) category on account of sale of immovable property and receipt of professional income. In view of non-filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, the assessee's case was selected for reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act on the allegation of income escaping assessment. 5. The assessee filed ITR in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for the captioned AY and offered an income for taxation to the tune of Rs. 14,44,910/- only. 5.1 In response to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee submitted that assessee had an immovable property which was sold for a total consideration of Rs. 2.5 crore, in which the assessee held a 1/3rd share. The Capital gain arising from such transaction was calculated by the assessee as follows: 6. The learned Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's contention with respect to ownership of one-third share in the property. However, in relation to the cost inflation index adopted by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee had taken the date of purchase of the impugned property as 10.04.1996, falling in the financial year 1996-97, for which the applicable CII was 305. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e than ten years prior to 30.06.2016, whereas the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued only on 05.04.2022. 13. However, the learned CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the Cost Inflation Index of 351 for FY 1998-99 instead of 305 for FY 1996-97. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the purchase deed of the impugned property was registered on 24.04.1998 and, therefore, the year of acquisition was correctly taken as FY 1998- 99. 13.1 The ld. CIT(A) further noted that no additional evidence under Rule 46A was filed to establish that possession was given or full consideration was paid in FY 1996-97. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence such as bank statements or utility bills to prove earlier possession or payment, the finding of the AO was confirmed. 13.2 The learned CIT(A) sustained the disallowance of cost of construction of Rs.26,00,000 and indexed cost of improvement of Rs.19,44,055 (being one-third of Rs.58,32,166). The ld. CIT(A) held that the appellant failed to furnish any documentary evidence or details to substantiate the expenditure claimed towards construction and improvement of the property during the relevant financial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Ld. DR, the assessee failed to bring on record any independent evidence to conclusively establish that possession was in fact handed over during FY 1996-97 and that the contract was acted upon in the manner contemplated under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Ld. DR therefore prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) be upheld, and the appeal of the assessee be dismissed. 17. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and carefully perused the materials available on record. The controversy before us is confined to the determination of the correct year of acquisition of the impugned immovable property for the purpose of adopting the applicable Cost Inflation Index. 17.1 On examination of the registered purchase deed placed in the paper book, we find that the document clearly records that the entire sale consideration of Rs. 24,50,000/-was paid by 10.04.1996 and possession of the property was handed over to the assessee on 20.04.1996. These recitals have not been controverted by the Revenue authorities by bringing any material on record to show otherwise. Merely because the deed was registered at a later point of time on 24.04.1998, the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or and first floor, which was ultimately sold during FY 2014-15. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that the assessee is entitled to deduction of such cost of construction from the full value of consideration while computing income chargeable under the head "Capital Gains" in accordance with the provisions of section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 20. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has failed to substantiate the claim of having incurred any cost of construction with cogent and reliable evidence. He contended that except for the description in the sale deed, no independent material such as approved building plans, completion certificate, bills, vouchers, or proof of payments to contractors has been placed on record to establish that the alleged construction was carried out by the assessee after acquisition of the property. The Ld. DR therefore supported the orders of the lower authorities and prayed that the disallowance of the claimed cost of construction while computing long-term capital gains be sustained. 21. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and carefully perused the materials available on record. The issue before us is whethe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.5 We find that the impugned additions and disallowances have been made only in the hands of the present assessee, despite the fact that the property is the same, the period of acquisition is identical, the nature of construction and improvement is common, and the mode of computation of capital gains arises out of the same transaction. The Revenue has not brought on record any distinguishing features or adverse material to justify a different treatment in the case of the assessee as compared to the other co-owners. 21.6 It is a settled principle where co-owners of the same property are similarly placed and the facts are identical; the Revenue cannot adopt inconsistent stands in the cases of different co-owners without any cogent reason. In the absence of any material difference in facts, parity and consistency demand that the assessee be treated on the same footing as the other co-owners. 21.7 Accordingly, following the principle of consistency and in the interest of judicial discipline, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the same treatment as adopted by the other co-owners. The year of acquisition, adoption of Cost Inflation Index, and allowance of cost of constructio....