9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncurred at Rs. 16,73,681/-. The assessee, being the sole Executrix of the last Will and Testament and of the Estate of her mother Late Mary Cursetjee, during the year under consideration entered into a Development Agreement dated 03.04.2003 with M/s. Ramesh Builders ('developers'). Under the said development agreement, Developers had paid a sum of Rs. 3,35,00,000/- to the assessee for obtaining from her full and exclusive development rights in respect of the piece of a land admeasuring 15,941/- square meters. The said land was originally owned by Late Ms.Mary Cursetjee, mother of the assessee, who died on 30.10.1996. As per her unrevoked last Will and Testament dated 29.11.1994, she appointed her only child, the assessee as her only heir and next kin. The said Will also appointed the assessee as the sole executrix of the said Will and of her Estate. According to the assessee, she had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 43,86,789/- (in various years) towards cost of improvement of the property, which the assessee had paid to the developers. Out of the said expenditure, the assessee considered an amount of Rs. 16,73,681/- as cost of improvement while computing the long term capital gain i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uilder had raised debit notes for Rs. 48.80 lakhs in relation towards improvement expenses incurred on behalf of the assessee which were not paid earlier to him as the owner of the estate as her late mother did not have fund to pay the expenses. Hence, the claim was made for the payments made by the builder to be borne by the assessee. However, the Ld.CIT(A) had noted that the property of the assessee was acquired in 1980 and the same was released in 1995 to the assessee's mother and the assessee inherited the property in 1996. The agreement for property with the builder was signed in 2003. Under such circumstances when the agreement was signed in 2003 for a sum of Rs. 3.35 crores for development of the property. The builder must have taken into account all the money he must have spent on behalf of the assessee's mother when the final price was reached for the purchase of the development rates of the property. The builder would not wait for 15 years to recover his money when there is no written agreement that he would recover his money from the assessee. The agreement had been signed after a gap of 8 years when the property was released by the State Government. Therefore, according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO during the assessment proceedings. When the facts are being so, we do not find any justification on the part of the authorities below to make/confirm the disallowance. Secondly, as regards the alowability of deduction of an expenditure of Rs. 9,17,113/-, (the balance expenditure out of the total expenditure considered of Rs. 16,73,681), it is the claim of the assessee that the builder has incurred the expenditure of Rs. 12,07,798 and the builder has given the detailed debit note in connection with the expenditure and out of the said expenditure, the assessee has claimed only Rs. 9,17,113/- without indexation. In this connection, it is relevant to state that the perusal of the debit note from the builder and the details of the expenditure available respectively at pages 83 and 86 of the paper book indicates that the assessee has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 12,07,798/- during the year under consideration and the details of the expenditure and the payments made by the assessee to the builder is a matter of record and the same have been made available to the AO during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessee has discharged the onus by providing the details of expend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a which is a premium holiday location it would have some letting out value. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) determined the value at Rs. 5000/- per month which he considered to be a reasonable value. Aggrieved by the impugned decision, the assessee has raised these grounds in the appeal before us. 3.2 Having heard both the sides and perused the material on record, it is pertinent to mention that neither the AO nor the Ld.CIT(A) has estimated the value of property on any reasonable basis. The estimation by both the authorities is based on assumptions and presumptions which is not legally tenable. In view of that matter, we direct the AO to accept the value shown by the assessee in respect of the said property. Resultantly, Ground No 8 and 9 are allowed. 4. In Grounds No. 10 to 13, the assessee has agitated the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in disallowing the expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of rental & electricity, repairs & maintenances and office expenses. 4.1 As regards the disallowance 2/3 of the expenditure on account of rent & electricity, repairs & maintenance the authorities below were of the view that the assessee was running the business of bill discounting from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
