9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port. In the computation of capital gains, assessee claimed an amount of Rs. 9,28,093/- u/s 48 towards indexed cost of improvement. As per valuation report, the value of the property was worked out at Rs. 1,05,000/- and there was no mention of any cost of improvement. The AO disallowed the assessee's claim in this behalf and computed the capital gains accordingly. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal which was dismissed on this issue which has been accepted by the assessee. The AO initiated penalty proceedings and called for assessee's explanation. Assessee replied as under:- "a) The AO made certain remarks and observation in the order and rejected the indexed cost of improvement of Rs. 928093/- without calling for further d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt has not mentioned or made any report or remark as to improvement of land being carried out by the assessee. iii) The certificate dated 06.01.2010 by Village Administrative Officer of Shamsabad does not mention anything about improvement of land by removing stone etc. from the assessee's land. iv) The confirmatory statement of Shri M.C. Patel regarding assessee's spending of Rs. 2 lakh over a period of 7 years holds no weight in absence of any direct evidene of incurring of expense towards improvement of land. v) The ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition made on this point by the AO on merits after duly considering the submission." 3.2 Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal against penalty, where the penalty was confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant's spending of Rs. 2 lakhs over a period of 7 years hold no any weight in absence of any direct evidence of incurring of expenses towards improvement of land. During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant has filed submission dated 15/3/2013 on behalf of the appellant but in such submission, the above findings of the AO have not been rebutted rather the AR of the appellant in such submission dated 15/03/2013 has stated that it is not possible for the appellant to produce direct evidence regarding improvement of the land after a period of 30 years. The AR of the appellant in such submission dated 15/03/2013 has stated that the direct proof of expenditure cannot be produced after a long period of 30 years for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri M.C. Patel's confirmation is opposing her own statutory evidence. (ii) No permission for breaking the rocks and removal thereof has been taken from the concerned department. (iii) The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd (supra) is not applicable to assessee's case inasmuch as the assessee makes a claim which is contradictory to its own evidence, i.e., valuation report. The Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment is not applicable to the case where the assessee deliberately makes a bogus claim. A mere cover-up by a confirmatory letter cannot convert assessee's deliberate attempt into a bona fide claim. (iv) The orders of the authorities below are relied upon. 7. I have heard the rival contentions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
