TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the assessee. Vacancy allowance claimed by the assessee, we note that the assessee never let out the property at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Therefore, the question of remaining the property vacant during the year for the purpose of vacancy allowance does not arise. Accordingly, the claim of the assessee is devoid of any merit, when the assessee never let out the property in question. Hence, the claim of vacancy allowance is rejected. Disallowance of cost of improvement, while computing the capital gain - Held that:- Assessee has not produced any supporting evidence regarding the expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of improvement of the property in question, however, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee, the property in question was purchased by assessee vide sale deed dated 19-10-1995 and as per the schedule of the property, there is no mention of any construction or any structure on the said property purchased by the assessee. We note that the assessee had sold the property vide sale deed dated 2nd December, 2008 and as per the schedule of the property, being part of the sale deed dated 2nd December, 2008 the property is described as ‘Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty at Bangalore, but did not accept the annual let out value adopted by the assessee as nil in respect of the property at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and computed the same at the rate of 10,000/- per month. Thus, the annual letting value estimated by the AO at ₹ 90,000/- for a period of nine months, because the assessee had sold the property during the year under consideration. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A)and also claim vacation allowance in respect of property at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO, while passing the impugned order. 3. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the AO has accepted the Municipal value in respect of other properties but estimated the annual letting value in respect of the property at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad on the ground that the assessee did not produce the property tax receipt in support of the Municipal value of the property. The learned counsel has pointed out before the CIT(A) the assessee has produced the property tax receipt in respect of the property situated at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. However, the CIT(A) has not considered the said evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the claim of the assessee being Municipal value as under; The assessee was asked to furnish copies of the returns of assessment of the property submitted to the Municipal/Corporation authorities. The assesee has furnished the copies of the return only in respect of the property at J.P.Nagar and Kaval byrasandra, Bangalore. Hence the assessee s claim relating to these two properties is acceptable keeping in view the judgments relied on by the assessee. However, similar view cannot be taken in respect of the other property at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad as the assesee has not produced the proof of Municipal valuation in respect of the properties at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. In the absence of production of Municipal valuation the annual value of the properties is computed as under u/s 23(1)(a) . 8. Thus, it is clear that the AO accepted the estimation of annual let ting value given by the assessee based on Municipal value of the property situated at Bangalore, because the assessee has furnished the return of the assessment of the property. The claim of the assessee in respect of the property at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad was rejected by the AO on the ground that the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion vide sale deed dated 19-10-1995 without any construction. He has referred the schedule of the property as part of the sale deed dated 19-10-1995 and submitted that as per the schedule of the property, there is no mention of any house on the said plot of land. Learned counsel for the assessee then referred the schedule of the property as per sale deed dated 2nd December, 2008, whereby the assessee had sold the property in question as a house. Thus, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has accepted the cost of construction and claimed the same as cost of improvement. The learned counsel has further submitted that the assessee has explained the authorities below and submitted that this expenditure was incurred by the assessee through one Mr.Prabhanjan Rao, whose affidavit has been filed by the assessee in confirmation of the said expenditure. The AO issued summons u/s 131 to Shri prabhanjan Rao, and in response to the notice Mr. Prabhanjan Rao, filed an affidavit and stated that he had not maintained any bill or documentary evidence as he was not aware that it was necessary to keep this evidence to claim the benefit. Thus, the learned counsel for the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
