TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. Sum incurred towards repayment of the house sold in the instant year - CIT(A) holding denial of deduction has held that no evidence has been brought on record regarding investment of the said land and therefore, claim of deduction to this extent is disallowed - Held that:- The appellant in the course of hearing has only referred to statement of affairs which is not a sufficient basis to allow the claim of deduction towards cost of acquisition of the property. There is nothing to support that any expenditure was incurred towards cost of development of house at plot no. 1402, Sector-6, Bahadurgarh in the instant year. Having regard to above, we feel that action of the CIT(A) is in order and claim of the appellant is therefore, rejected. In the result, the grounds raised by the appellant are partly allowed and ground raised by the revenue is rejected. Addition representing agricultural income declared by the appellant and held to be income from undisclosed sources - Held that:- It is undisputed that the appellant has not produced documentary evidence in support of agricultural income declared by the appellant. It is further not disputed that the appellant is owner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out any verification and documentary evidence which is not justified. 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in directing the AO to consider the LTCG (Long Term Capital Gains) of ₹ 11,75,813/-, which was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) furnish sustainable documentary evidence in respect of these investments inspite of sufficient opportunities allowed to assessee during assessment as well as remand proceedings. 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 6,40,000/- out of ₹ 15,50,000/- made by AO by treating the agricultural income as income from undisclosed sources as assessee failed to furnish sustainable documentary evidence in respect of the agricultural income during assessment proceedings; the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the plea of the assessee without any verification and documentary evidence which is not justified. 3. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in ITA No. 4312/D/2012 are as under :- 1 That order of assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act 29.12.2011 is without jurisdiction since the learned Joint Commissioner of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on residential house in the financial year 2008-09 at Nil as against total expenditure of ₹ 2,00,000/- on repair of the house. 4 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in not allowing the claim of exemption of ₹ 39,15,450/- u/s 54B of the Act. 4.1 That the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that no evidence has been led that agriculture operations were being carried out on the said land is contrary to facts and evidence on record and has been arrived without granting any opportunity and therefore, unsustainable. 5 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding an addition of ₹ 9,10,000/- out of aggregate addition made of ₹ 15,50,000/- representing agricultural income earned by the appellant in the year under consideration. 6 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B of ₹ 30,56,108/- which is not leviable at all on the facts of the instant case. It is therefore prayed that, it be held that, assessment framed is with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere duly shown in the statement of affairs of respective years and was corroborated by the statement of affairs accepted in the preceding years. It was further stated that amount was spent on construction of a big residential house and improvement of agriculture land such as filing, landscaping etc. including a barbed wire boundary which was constructed on the entire land of 46 kanals and 8 marlas and a pucca water harvesting pool of 90 lacs liters was also constructed by the appellant which was duly connected with road and pavements. The appellant furnished photocopies of the said property in support of the claim of cost of land incurred for development of the property apart from a valuation report. The assessee filed copy of bank statement in support of the claim of construction. A remand report was obtained from the Assessing Officer. On consideration of the above, CIT(A) allowed the claim of the appellant except to the extent of ₹ 47,55,000/- and as such, both assessee and revenue are in appeal. 10. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that since during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had directed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year was house no. 1402, Sector-6, Bahadurgarh whereby the assessee claimed an expenditure of ₹ 2,00,000/- incurred during the instant assessment year which too had been denied by the Assessing Officer. Thus appellant claimed cost of ₹ 16,50,000/- incurred in assessment year 2004-05 in respect of house no. 1392, Sector-6, Bahadurgarh and cost of ₹ 33,00,000/-, 33,95,000/- and ₹ 53,20,000/- incurred in the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09 towards agricultural land sold alongwith farm house at Gurgaon in the instant year. So far as the cost incurred in the preceding assessment years is concerned, the CIT(A) has allowed the same by holding vis- -vis agricultural land as under: The agriculture land was purchased in the FY 2004-05 for a consideration of ₹ 21,05,000/-. Thereafter, improvements/ additions to the agriculture land by way of earth filling, barbed wire fencing, construction of water harvesting pool, construction of huge residential house etc. were claimed to have been made during the FY 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 2008-09 by investing ₹ 30,00,000/-, ₹ 33,95,000/-, ₹ 53,20,000/- and ₹ 1,23,50,000/- respectively. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re claimed to the extent of ₹ 77,95,000/- and denied sum of ₹ 45,55,000/- by holding as under: This expenditure claimed is evident from entries in the 9 banks accounts maintained by the assessee. 8.3 From the above, it is evident that the assessee has spent substantial amount towards additions to the agriculture land by way of earth filling, construction of water harvesting pool and farm house etc. It is seen that the assessee has sold the farm house for a consideration of ₹ 1,05,79,000/- vide sale deed dated 14.07.2008 and the agriculture land for a consideration of ₹ 3,18,63,000/- vide sale deed dated 5.11.2008. Had the assessee not made any investment for the construction of farms house on the bare agriculture land purchased during FY 2004-05, he would not have been able to sell the farm house by a separate sale deed for a consideration of ₹ 1,05,79,000/-. However, it is seen from the above account that the assessee has claimed payment of ₹ 45,55,000/- even after 14.07.2008 to various concerns towards addition to the farm house, which is not tenable. The addition to the farm house made during the year is therefore restricted to ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acquisition of the property. There is nothing to support that any expenditure was incurred towards cost of development of house at plot no. 1402, Sector-6, Bahadurgarh in the instant year. Having regard to above, we feel that action of the CIT(A) is in order and claim of the appellant is therefore, rejected. In the result, the grounds raised by the appellant are partly allowed and ground raised by the revenue is rejected. 19. Ground 2 raised by revenue relates to long term capital gain of ₹ 11,75,813/- which was claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act and short term capital gain of ₹ 3,09,715/- declared by the appellant in its return of income. The CIT(A) vis- -vis aforesaid ground has held as under:- 15. I have considered the issue and the submissions made by the AR. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the details to LTCG STCL on shares along with evidences for the first time on 7.12.2011. in response to this requirement, the assessee vide letter dated 19.12.2011 furnished the details along with copies of D-mat a/c, transaction statements with share brokers and payment of STT along with revised computation statements, which has been confirmed in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he agricultural land but however reiterated that in absence of evidence furnished by the appellant, claim is not maintainable. The CIT(A) however has allowed claim of the appellant to the tune of ₹ 6,40,000/- and upheld the balance of ₹ 9,10,000/- for the following reasons: 20. I have considered the issue and the submissions made by the AR. The ownership of agriculture land by the assessee is not in doubt. The assessee has declared agricultural income of ₹ 3,14,513/- in the AY 2007-08. No agricultural income was shown in the AY 2008-09. Agricultural income for both the years was declared in the year under consideration at ₹ 15,50,000/-. The claim of agricultural income cannot be denied merely because Form-J was not furnished by the assessee. The contention of the AR that the agricultural income shown by the assessee of ₹ 18,902/- per acre is reasonable considering that I have upheld agricultural income of ₹ 26,000/- per acre by the above mentioned appeal order is misplaced and unacceptable as agricultural income depends on various factors like fertility of land, availability of water etc. Since the assessee himself has shown agricultural inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
