9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and in the circumstances of the case the AO erred in not treating a sum of Rs. 1,06,08,738/- towards construction of the property and enhancing the capital gain by Rs. 1,06,08,738/-." 2. The ground no. 1 is general and does not require any adjudication. The ground no. 2 relate to the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 1,06,08,738/- while computing the capital gain by the assessing officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the year the assessee sold the property plot bearing no. 39, Block C, Sector-57, Noida, measuring 1800 sq. meter along with covered area on ground floor 960.96 sq. meter plus covered area on first floor 551.92 sq. meter totalling on all floors 2473.84 sq meters for a total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on once, he has agreed for the sale of the property. When questioned in this regard, the assessee submitted that the construction over the plot was carried out from 2000-01 to 2009-10 and it is a general practice of the building material supplier to keep on supplying material from time to time and raise the bill at certain periodicity. Maxmimim bricks were consumed on terrace for parapet wall. The assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee as in his opinion. This was to avoid the tax and made the addition on account of undisclosed capital gain amount into Rs. 1,06,08,738/- . 5. When the matter went before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the assessing officer. We heard the rival submission and carefully considered th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessing officer has duly submitted the bills of M/s. Ganesh Carrier, M/s. Virender Singh, M/s. Swami Traders and Axiom water bill showing the expenses incurred on rodi N. sand etc. from the month of June and in July. The assessing officer or revenue did not brought on record any evidence proving that bills are not genuine or bogus even no confirmation except Axiom Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was asked for. The assessing officer simply treated the expenses incurred by the assessee on the construction to be bogus. This is a settled law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 that onus is on the party which alleges that apparent is not real. No cogent material or evidence is brought t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
