Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 269 - AT - Income TaxCapital gains - calculation of number of trees - Held that:- On going through copies of jamabandi the Assessing Officer has noticed that khasra No.494 & khasra No.573/1 measuring 0-10-98 & 0- 53-00 are reflected as bagicha i.e. apple orchard and remaining khasra Nos.496, 499 & 500 are either banjar kadim or under agriculture crops. We are in agreement with this finding of the Assessing Officer, which he has arrived after a totally scientific method applied on the basis of revenue records. As regards number of apple trees to be grown per bighas, the Assessing Officer has applied 25 number of apple trees per bigha on the basis of consultation from revenue/horticultural authority, which even the assessee has not objected to. On this basis, the Assessing Officer has arrived at 99 number of trees. We do not find any fault in this. The evidence filed by the assessee in terms of certificate of Tehsildar or that of a retired IAS officer is of no evidentiary value, specially in the presence of Jamabandi, which is an actual proof of land holding and cultivation thereon. In this view, we confirm the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) to the extent of number of trees to be 99 as against 142 claimed by the assessee. - Decided against assessee Computation of cost of acquisition and improvement to be taken for computing capital gain - Held that:- The cost of improvement, in case of a tree can only be those expenses which are incurred either to enhance the life span of the trees or to enhance the fruit bearing capacity of such trees. These further expenses are not of such nature and are incurred only for the upkeep of the orchard or for the maintenance of the trees only. Therefore, we uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in not treating these expenses as part of cost of acquisition or cost of improvement. We further uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing the Net Present Value as computed by the assessee for the loss of likely earning. As we have earlier mentioned that this approach may be appropriate for estimating the amount of compensation, but for the purpose of computing the capital gains, this is not the right approach. In view of the above, we uphold the order of the Assessing Officer. - Decided against assessee
|