TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in an adhoc manner is not justified. The said claim it has been stated has been supported by the Report of an Architect/Engineer. These facts, evidences and arguments, it is seen have not been examined before arriving at a conclusion. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the issue is restored to the AO directing him to examine the claim put forth on the basis of facts and evidences and not reject the claim purely on the grounds that it was hand vouched. Similarly, considering the claims not considered i.e. the land sold was ancestral land devolving upon the assessee by way of inheritance. Find no evidence in support of the same is available on record. The argument is available. Accordingly the impugned on this issue also is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gains. 4. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of AO in disallowing ₹ 1,21,832 from the development expenses @ 20% of ₹ 609158. 5. The order of the A.O. is against law and facts of the case. 6. The appellant craves the right to add, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee in the year under consideration declared an income of ₹ 96,490/- and agricultural income of ₹ 88,300/-. The said return was selected for scrutiny through CASS in view of the fact that the assessee as per AIR information was found to have deposited cash of ₹ 41,07,500/- on 31.03.2009 in Vysya Bank Ltd., 31/6 Siddharth Colony, Arya S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. (Addition ₹ 1,21,832/-) The agricultural land was got converted to other than agricultural land mentioned in para 3 above and area chart forming past of valuation report filed by the assessee bearing date 05.04.2010 is annexed to this order as annexure A . The cost of land is taken by indexing the rate of 1981-82. After conversion of agricultural land to other than, agricultural land, the value of land is takenF.Y.2008-09 considering it the business activities with effect from F.Y. 2009-10. The assessee shown capital gain at ₹ 96,485/- which shows that at this stage the assessee is treated to be doing business. Since the land had been converted into the ether than agricultural land, the concept of capital gain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the CIT(A)'s order. Considering these, the CIT(A) at page 7 though notes the argument of the assessee, however rejects the claim taking the following facts into consideration:- In the case of the appellant the land was purchased for business purposes. The appellant waited for the correct time to develop it and then sold the land after dividing it in plots. There is no conversion of capital asset in stock etc. (emphasis provided) 4.1. The Ld.AR referring to the impugned order submitted that the CIT(A) has not addressed the issues on facts and has misdirected himself by referring to wrong facts. The land it was submitted was ancestral land of the assessee which devolved upon him by way of inheritance and the plottin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is seen that it has been argued that for making the sale feasible the assessee has borne the expenses for plotting and making the roads etc. Payments for which necessarily were made to labourers and the material sourced was again local material sourced from the unorganised sector wherein necessarily the expenditure vouched would again be hand vouched. In the absence of any abnormal claim vis- -vis the nature and extent of development done disallowance of the expenses claimed in an adhoc manner is not justified. The said claim it has been stated has been supported by the Report of an Architect/Engineer. These facts, evidences and arguments, it is seen have not been examined before arriving at a conclusion. Accordingly, the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
