TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1309
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ormation as called for. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading of shares and mutual funds. Apart from that, assessee is also engaged as insurance advisory and maintains mercantile system of accounting. The AO observed that assessee has calculated capital gains as under:- "Capital Gains Long Term Capital Gains 1/5 share of M-21, GK Part II, New Delhi Full consideration 24620000 Less : Expenses on transfer 246200 24373800 Less : Indexed cost of acquisition 7291904 Less : Exemption U/S 54/54B/54D/54EC/54F 8841618 8240278 1/5 share of S-330, GK Part I, New Delhi. Full consideration 4900000 Less Indexed Cost of Acquisition 4032307 6676939107971 4. After verifying consideration mentioned in the sale agreement, he noticed that stamp duty mentioned in the agreement is Rs. 12.95 crores whereas final consideration declared in the agreement is Rs. 12.31 crores. Assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e purchase of Property, E-383, Basement, Greater Kailash Part 2, New Delhi although consideration amount of stamp duty is Rs. 1,02,00,000/-. Accordingly, he invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act and treated the difference as income of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 24 lakhs. 9. Further the AO made addition of Rs. 37,74,283/- and Rs. 54,89,032/- disallowing the index cost of acquisition for the properties at S-330, GK Part I, New Delhi and M-21, GK Part 2, New Delhi respectively. 10. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who sustained the additions 11. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in not allowing the benefit of deduction of Rs. 88,41,618/- u/s 54/54F and more so when claim has been made by the assessee as per law and the said deduction has been denied by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice. 2. That in any case and in any view of the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oo by recording incorrect facts and findings and without providing entire adverse material on record and without providing the opportunity of cross examination and without observing the principles of natural justice and without complying with mandatory conditions as per law. 8. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 54,89,034/- to the indexed cost of acquisition for the property M-21, Greater Kailash, Part- II, New Delhi, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making additions/disallowances in the Impugned assessment order is illegal, void ab initio, contrary to law and facts, beyond jurisdiction and without observing the principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed. 10. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 12. At the time of hearing ld. AR o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ID card showing this as the address. PB 225is the copy of the LIC policy showing this as the address. PB 227is the copy of the house tax receipt showing this as the address. PB 89-94 (90,94)is the valuation report of registered valuer dated 15.10.2024 (made by Upadhye And Associates), showing this property as commercial cum residential. PB 95-103 is another valuation report from registered valuer (made by KCA Pal & Associates), which describes this property as commercial cum residential. PB 187-188 are the electricity bills, showing electric tariff category as 'domestic'. CLC 96-106 is the copy of the assessment order for AY 2015-16 of the assessee's brother & Co-owner Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, which also shows that he was residing in this very property, and this very issue of the commercial nature of the property was raised in this case, and based on the inspector's report, the deduction u/s 54 was allowed to him in respect of upper floors and 54F was allowed to him qua ground floor. PB 189-223 (205-210) is the submission before Ld. CIT(A) on this very issue, and also on alternative plea (PB 210) is that if the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 (Mum) (CLC 9-12, para 6) * CIT vs. Ouseph Chacko [2004] 271 ITR 29 (Ker) (CLC 13-14), 2. In paragraph no. 6.6,at pg. no.44 Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned that it cannot be ascertained whether electricity bill pertains to this very property. In this connection, it is submitted that the bill pertains to the same property as there is no Barsati Market in Greater Kailash-II. The details in the bill refers to the Barsati Floor, i.e. Second floor. Further, 'MS' stands for refers M BLOCK, Shopping Complex. Therefore, the bill is in respect of second floor of the same property. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has made reference to assessee's submission in paragraphs no. 6.7 and 6.8 at pg. no.44, that valuation reports mention the property as commercial cum residential property time and again. This is not a legal declaration and cannot be considered as documentary evidence for categorisation of the property. In this connection, it is submitted that the report of K.C.A. Pal & Associates (PB 95-103) specifically mentions that the report is made on the basis of inspection and survey of the building on 10.12.2017. Thus, categorisation as commercial cum residential buildin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2024 (CLC 15-44) * ITO vs. Aditya Narain Verma (HUF) (2017) 57 ITR (Trib) 0449 (Delhi ITAT) (CLC 45-55) * MeghrajBaidvs.ITO,114 TTJ841(JD),ITAT, Jodhpur Bench (CLC 56- 58) * Mohd.Shoibvs.Dy.CIT,29 DTR306(ITAT Lucknow 'B')(CLC 59-75) * SunilKumarAgarwalvs.CIT(2015)372ITR0083(Cal HC) (CLC 76-80), In view of these cases, it requested that addition made u/s 56(2)(vii) may be deleted, and grounds no 3 and 4 may be allowed. 13. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 14. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. With regard to Ground no 1 and 2, we observed that the assessee had sold the property situated at M-21. GK-II, New Delhi, which has shops at the ground floor and flats on one to four floors were residential, where the assessee along with his brothers were residing. As per the agreement, it was shown as commercial property however, the other documents like completion certificate and maps indicate that the upper floors were residential property, resided by the brothers and the assessee. Even the house tax receipt shows that it is residential property, the....