The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0892 (Del-Trib) : (2021) 086 ITR (Trib) 0576

IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH

BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. & ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M.

Ashok Kumar v. ITO

I.T.A. No. 1160/Del./2020

2 February, 2021

In favour of Assessee.

Assessee by: Rakesh Jain, Advocate, Gurjeet Singh, C.A.

Revenue by: Alka Gautam, Sr. Departmental Representative

ORDER

Bhavnesh Saini, J.M.

This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-25, New Delhi, dated 28-2-2020, for the assessment year 2014-2015 on the following grounds :--

2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties through video conferencing and perused the material on record.

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income on 13-1-2015 declaring an income of Rs. 4,43,090. The assessee has shown long term capital loss of Rs. 52,01,327 from sale of properties. The details of the same are noted in the assessment order which were in respect of two properties i.e., 380, Ramnagar, Delhi and 80 Shanti Vihar, Delhi. The assessee is claiming long term capital loss of Rs. 52,01,327 on sale of these properties after deducting indexed cost of acquisition, indexed cost of improvement expenses and claiming an exemption, details of which are summarised in the assessment order as under :--

3.1. The assessing officer in respect of property at 380 Ramnagar, Delhi, has taken indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 3,97,917 and in respect of property at 80 Shanti Vihar, Delhi taken the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 12,31,475. The assessee claimed transfer expenses and cost of improvement also which were disallowed by the assessing officer The assessee also filed revised computation of capital gains which is reproduced in the assessment order as under :--

3.2. The assessing officer, however, rejected the revised computation of capital gains because no revised return have been filed under section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act by relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India (P) Ltd., v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) : 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1528 (SC). The assessing officer did not rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1881 (Del-HC). Therefore, revised computation was rejected. The assessing officer noted that assessee has claimed exemption of Rs. 77,34,426 in the income tax return and in the revised computation at Rs. 99,22,300. This exemption has been claimed under section 54 on account of purchase of residential house property at Ground Floor D-50, Kushambi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. On perusal of the Purchase Deed filed by assessee it was observed that this house was purchased on 19-2-2013 whereas the residential property at 80 Shanti Vihar, Delhi was sold on 24-2-2014. The assessing officer noted that the exemption under section 54 is allowable only if the assessee purchased the residential house within one year before or two years after the date on which transfer of capital asset took place. The details of sale and purchase of property is tabulated in the assessment order as under :--

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT