Smt. Padmini Ramachandran, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 1002/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 100221114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S PARTHASARATHI DR SHANKA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 54; 144; 2

Judgement Text

ITA.1002/BANG/2014 & SP.86/BANG/2015 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. N. V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.1002/BANG/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) SMT. PADMINI RAMACHANDRAN, NO.310, 2A MAIN, 3 RD MAIN THAMBUCHETTY PALYA MAIN ROAD, HOYSALANAGAR, NEAR RAMAMURTHYNAGAR, BANGALORE 560 0 16 ..APPELLANT PAN : AEZPR9123A V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BANGALORE ..RESPONDENT STAY PETITION NO.86/BANG/2015 (IN I.T.A NO.1002/BANG/2014) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) (BY THE ASSESSEE) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : DR. SHANKAR PRASAD K, JCIT HEARD ON : 08.07.2015 PRONOUNCED ON : 30.07.2015 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE, GRIEVANCE RAISED BY IT THROUGH HER GROUNDS 1 TO 7 ARE THAT COST OF THE ASSETS SOLD WAS INCORRECTLY CONSIDERED WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS AND SHE WAS NOT GIVEN T HE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ITA.1002/BANG/2014 & SP.86/BANG/2015 PAGE - 2 U/S.54F OF THE ACT, ON THE INVESTMENT IN NEW HOUSE. SINCE THESE GROUNDS ARISE OUT OF THE SAME FACT-SITUATION, IT IS TAKEN UP TOG ETHER. 02. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED A RET URN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 22.11.2006 DECLARING INCOME OF R S.1,56,450/-. INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FROM DANCE CLASSES. DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD INVESTE D RS.20,50,000/- IN MUTUAL FUNDS. SOURCE THEREOF WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSE E AS ARISING FROM SALE OF A PROPERTY IN CHENNAI FOR A SUM OF RS.36 LAKHS. CALC ULATION OF CAPITAL GAINS WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. LONG -TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS PER THIS CALCULATION WAS AS UNDER : TOTAL SALE PROCEEDS - RS.36,00,000/- INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION RS.18.75 X 1079.75 X 49 7 100 - RS. 1,00,643/- RS.34,89,357/- INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY - RS.24,32,096/- INVESTMENT IN SITE - RS.14,50,000/- - RS.38,82,096/- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS - NIL AO MADE A VERIFICATION OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT. AFTER VERIFICATION O F THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO FOUND THAT ACTUAL UTILISATION FOR CONS TRUCTION OF A NEW HOUSE PROPERTY WAS RS.8,80,000/- AND THE BALANCE WAS NOT DEPOSITED IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF RS .8,80,000/- ONLY AND THE ITA.1002/BANG/2014 & SP.86/BANG/2015 PAGE - 3 BALANCE UNINVESTED AMOUNT WAS BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE DE TAILS CALLED FOR BY THE AO, HE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT IN SHORT) ON 15.12.2008. 03. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY HIM. 04. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED A FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE THIS ORDER DT.27.02.2012 IN ITA. 1255/BANG/2011, AFTER CAPTURING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, HELD AS UNDER AT P ARAS 2 TO 5, WHICH IS AS UNDER : 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HER ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME IS FROM CONDUCTING DA NCE CLASSES. SHE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON 22-11- 2006 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,56,450/-. DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SU BMIT THE DETAILS OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER THE AO ALSO RECEIVED THE AIR INFORMATION REGARDING THE ASSESSEES INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUND OF RS.20,50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE SOURCE FOR THE MUTUAL FUND INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHE SOLD A PROPERTY IN CHENNAI FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.36.00 LAKHS AND THAT THE CAPITA L GAINS WAS INVESTED IN PROPERTY AND HENCE, NIL INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN S WAS DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AND DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE IT ACT. THE AO W AS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, H E CALLED FOR FURTHER DETAILS. BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE SA ME AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE IT ACT BASE D ON THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WAS MADE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE ASSESSMENT MADE EX-PARTE AND ALSO ON MERITS. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DETAILS REGARDING THE CLAIM OF CAPITAL GAINS AND DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE IT ACT BEFORE THE CIT(A) AN D THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ON THE SAME. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY REITERATED HIS FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO IS IN ORDER. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED HER REJOI NDER AND AFTER ITA.1002/BANG/2014 & SP.86/BANG/2015 PAGE - 4 CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEF ORE US. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI BALARA M R RAO, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SEVERELY ILL DURING THE PERIOD OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, DUE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT PRODUCE ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE THE AO. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) HA S CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. BUT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE DURIN G THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS TO EXPLAIN HER CASE. THUS, ACCORDING T O HIM, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS TO BE SET ASIDE. HE FURTHER DREW OU R ATTENTION TO THE FIGURES TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) IN THE APPELLATE ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SELLING PRICE (INCLUDING RS.3.00 LAKHS WOOD WOR K) OF RS.36.00 LAKHS WAS TAKEN INSTEAD OF RS.39.00 LAKHS STATED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). ACCOR DING TO HIM, THIS ALONE REFLECTS THE NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE CIT(A). 4. THE LEARNED DR HOWEVER, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT CO-OPERATIVE BEFORE THE AO BUT HAS FILED THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN THE RULE 46A OF THE IT R ULES, 1962 HAS CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY OF DEFENDING HER CASE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 5. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSIDE RED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO SUPPO RT HER CONTENTIONS. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE DATE O F HEARING WAS ONLY ON 05-12-2008 AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 15-12-200 8 WITH A GAP OF 10 DAYS. BEFORE THE CIT(A)) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ST ATEMENT OF FACTS, WHEREIN THE SELLING PRINCE INCLUDING (RS.3.00 LAKHS INCURRED TOWARDS WOOD WORKS) WAS SHOWN AS RS.39.00 LAKHS, WHEREAS TH E CIT(A) HAS TAKEN IT AS RS.36.00 LAKHS. IN OUR VIEW, THIS DEMO NSTRATES THE NON- APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE CIT(A). FURTHER, WE FIN D THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS TO EXPLAIN HER CASE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING AUTHO RITY WITH A DIRECTION TO DO THE DE NOVO ASSESSMENT AFTER GIVING THE ASSESEE A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE SHALL ALSO CO-OPERATE WITH T HE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL AND EARLY CO MPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEES INCOME. ITA.1002/BANG/2014 & SP.86/BANG/2015 PAGE - 5 05. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED A DENOVO ASSESSMENT , MATTER WAS TAKEN UP ONCE AGAIN BY THE AO. DURING THE COURSE OF THIS PR OCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE FILED A FRESH COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS WHEREBY THE INDE XED COST OF ACQUISITION WAS SHOWN AS RS.26,85,774/-, AGAINST RS.1,00,643/- ORIG INALLY SHOWN. ADDITIONAL CLAIM OF INDEXED COST WAS IN RELATION TO THE UNDIVI DED PORTION OF LAND TRANSFERRED TO SHRI. S. VENKATA KRISHNA RAO UNDER A JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (JDA IN SHORT), DATED.01.03.1991. ONCE THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WAS TAKEN AT RS.28,85,774/-, CAPITAL G AINS CAME DOWN TO RS.40,355/-. OR IN OTHER WORDS, EVEN IF THE DEDUCT ION U/S.54F OF THE ACT WAS GIVEN ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8,80,000/-, THERE WO ULD BE NO CAPITAL GAINS TAX FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE REVISED INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE CO URSE OF THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. AS PER THE AO, THE INDEXED COST OF AC QUISITION WAS BASED ON JDA DT.01.03.1991, BUT THE CAPITAL GAINS THAT WOULD HAV E ARISEN TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1990-91 WAS NEVER RETURNE D BY THE ASSESSEE NOR TAXES PAID FOR THAT YEAR. HE, THEREFORE, REFUSED TO CONS IDER THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PERSISTE D WITH THE ORIGINAL INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF RS.1,00,643/- FOR THE LAND S HOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE MADE THE ADDITIONS MORE OR LESS ON THE SAME LINES A S IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT EXCEPT FOR GIVING DEDUCTION FOR INDEXED COST OF IMP ROVEMENT OF RS.7,77,328/-. ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR INVESTMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT AT RS.38,82,096/- WAS ONCE AGAIN RESTRICTED TO RS.8 ,80,000/-, TAKING A VIEW THAT ITA.1002/BANG/2014 & SP.86/BANG/2015 PAGE - 6 THE SURPLUS CAPITAL GAINS WERE NOT DEPOSITED IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN. 06. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE ONCE AGAIN MOVED BEFORE THE CIT (A). ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT ASSESSEE HAD EXECUTED AN AGRE EMENT FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY WITH ONE VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, VIDE AGREEME NT DT.01.03.1991 AND BY VIRTUE OF THIS AGREEMENT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO 5 ,500 SQ.FT OF SUPER STRUCTURE OF THE APARTMENTS DEVELOPED THEREIN WITH AN UNDIVIDED SHARE IN THE LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 48%. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE CONSTRUCTE D APARTMENTS THAT CAME TO HER WAS HELD BY HER SINCE 1994. THE PLOT MEASURING 7,5 00 SQ.FT ON WHICH CONSTRUTION WAS MADE WAS THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE FROM INHERITANCE. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS OUT OF 5,500 SQ. FT, BUILT IN THE SAID PLOT THAT SHE SOLD 1,743 SQ.FT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. COST OF CONSTRUCTI ON WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.803/- PER SFT TAKING THE BASE YEAR A S 1994-95. ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR SALE OF THE AP ARTMENT WAS RS.39 LAKHS AND NOT RS.36 LAKHS AS ORIGINALLY DECLARED. DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE WERE ALSO FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF JDA DT.01. 03.1991. 07. HOWEVER, CIT (A) WAS NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ABOVE ARGUMENT. ACCORDING TO THE CIT (A), A STUDY OF THE JDA DT.01.03.1991, P ROVED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR UNDIVIDED SHARE OF RIGHT AND INTE REST WAS ONLY RS.1,50,000/-. AGAINST THIS, ASSESSEE CLAIMED COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RS.13,99,629/- AT RS.803/- PER SFT, FOR 1,743 SFT WHICH WAS INDEXED TO RS.26,8 5,774/-. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE JDA, DT.01.03.1991, WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN CAP ITAL GAINS FOR THE ASSESSEE, ITA.1002/BANG/2014 & SP.86/BANG/2015 PAGE - 7 BUT ASSESSEE HAD NOT RETURNED ANY CAPITAL GAINS FOR THAT YEAR. AS PER LD. CIT (A) ASSESSEE HAD IN THE ORIGINAL COMPUTATION FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CLAIMED INDEXED COST OF ACQU ISITION OF RS.1,00,643/- ONLY. HE, THEREFORE, REFUSED TO ENTERTAIN THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE, AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 08. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT JDA DT.01. 03.1991, PLACED AT PAGES 11 TO 20 WAS NEVER DISPUTED BY ANY OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES. IT WAS MENTIONED AT PARA 6 THEREOF THAT AS PER THE JDA, TH E PARTIES WERE TO FILE APPLICATION WITH APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY IN FORM NO.3 7-I AS PRESCRIBED UNDER INCOME-TAX RULES. LD. AR ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTIC E, ORDER U/S.269L(1) OF THE ACT, DT.28.08.1991 NOC WAS GIVEN BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY FOR THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AS INDICATED IN THE JDA DT.01.03.1991. AS PER THE LD. AR, JDA WAS CLEAR THAT IN LIEU OF THE 7500 SFT OF LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO S. VENKATAKA KRISHNA RAO, ASSESSEE WAS GETTING 5,500 SFT OF CONSTRUCTED AREA THEREIN AND 48% SHARE OF THE LAND. ACCORDINGLY, JUST FOR THE REASON THAT CAPITAL GAINS, IF ANY, WAS NOT RETURNED IN THE SAID YEAR, COST OF ACQUISITION COULD NOT BE IGNORED. INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED, BUT NOT ALLOWED. 09. PER CONTRA, LD.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 10. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. EXISTENCE OF A JDA, DT.01.03.1991, HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY ANY OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. PARA 20 OF THE SAID JDA IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : ITA.1002/BANG/2014 & SP.86/BANG/2015 PAGE - 8 20. IT IS HEREBY UNDERSTOOD BY THE PARTY OF THE FI RST PART AND PARTY OF THE SECOND PART THAT THE TOTAL EXTENT OF THE LAN D BEING 7920 SQ.FT., THE PARTY OF THE FIRST PART SHALL RETAIN 3564 SQ.FT ., FOR OWNING 5500 SQ.FT., OF CONSTRUCTED AREA TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY TH E PARTY OF THE SECOND PART AND THE BALANCE 4356 SQ.FT., OF LAND ALONE IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF SALE AS PER THIS AGREEMENT. 11. SSESSEE HAD ALONG WITH S. VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, THE OTHER PARTY TO JDA, OBTAINED NOC U/S.269L OF THE ACT, ON 28.08.1991 FRO M THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, NAMELY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX. THUS, IN OUR OPINION, EXISTENCE OF JDA CANNOT BE DOUBTED AT ALL. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT WHAT HAS BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS A PART OF THE 5,500 SFT OF THE CONSTRUCTED AREA OBTAINED BY IT BY VIRTUE OF THE JDA. ONLY QUE STION THEREFORE, THAT REMAINS IS HOW THE COST OF 5,500 SFT OF CONSTRUCTED AREA HA S TO BE RECKONED AND FROM WHICH YEAR, INDEXATION HAS TO BE GIVEN. CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED AND THE INDEXATION BENEF IT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO IT FROM F. Y. 1994-95. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN RS.803 /- PER SFT AS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR VALUING 1,743 SFT OF LAND SOLD. I N OUR OPINION, THE QUESTION WHETHER ASSESSEE HAD RETURNED THE CAPITAL GAINS ARI SING OUT OF THE JDA IN A. Y. 1991-92, HAS NO RELEVANCE FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHEN THE ASSESSEE COULD PROVE THA T THERE WAS A COST INCURRED BY IT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING IN F. Y. 199 0-91. HENCE, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR INDEXED COST OF SUCH BUILDING HAS TO B E CONSIDERED. NEVERTHELESS NONE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE APPLIED THEIR MI ND TO THE MODE AND METHOD OF COMPUTING THE COST AND THE RATE AT WHICH THE COST I S TO BE DETERMINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDEXATION. IN OUR OPINION, THIS REQUIR ES A FRESH LOOK BY THE AO. AS ITA.1002/BANG/2014 & SP.86/BANG/2015 PAGE - 9 PER THE ASSESSEE, THE RATE OF RS.803 SFT WAS APPRO PRIATE ONE, BUT THIS ASPECT REQUIRES VERIFICATION. IN OUR OPINION, THOUGH ASSE SSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION ON THE BUILDING SOLD BY HER BASED ON THE JDA DT.01.03.1991, THE ISSUE OF ASCERTAINING THE CORREC T COST NEEDS A RELOOK. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES IN THIS REGARD AND REMIT IT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 12. ONCE INDEXED COST OF BUILDING IS COMPUTED, AND WHEN THIS IS AGGREGATED WITH THE INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS.7,77,328 /-, THE CAPITAL GAINS THAT WOULD ARISE MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE LESS THAN THE DED UCTION OF RS.8,80,000/- ALLOWED BY THE AO HIMSELF. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF T HE OPINION THAT THE OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO CAPITA L GAINS NEED NOT BE ADJUDICATED AT THIS POINT OF TIME. HOWEVER, IF THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS DONE BY THE AO AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR DIRECTIONS RESULT IN CAPITAL GAINS IN EXCESS OF RS.8,80,000/-, ASSESSEE WOULD BE FREE TO RAISE THE GROUNDS RELATING TO ITS INVESTMENTS U/S.54F OF THE ACT, DONE IN THE PROPERT Y. GROUNDS 1 TO 7 OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. 13. VIDE GROUND 8, GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THA T DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER IS NOT ALLOWED DESPITE ADEQUATE PROOF BEING PROVIDE D. WE FIND THAT IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A), ASSESSEE HAD RAISED ALTOGETHER 8 GROUNDS AND IN NONE OF THE GROUNDS, THE ISSUE REGARDING DEPRECIATION ON COMPUT ER WAS RAISED. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THIS GROUND RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ARISE ITA.1002/BANG/2014 & SP.86/BANG/2015 PAGE - 10 OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). GROUND 8 OF THE A SSESSEE, THEREFORE, STANDS DISMISSED. 14. SINCE THE APPEAL ITSELF ON WHICH THE STAY PETIT ION ARISES, HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF AS ABOVE, STAY PETITION IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTU OUS. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH DAY OF JULY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (N. V. VASUDEVAN) (ABRAHAM P GEORG E) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER