9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,223/-'' 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the cost of construction as cost of improvement of the property in spite of submitting the substantial evidences regarding cost of construction.'' 2.1 At the time of hearing the appeal of the assessee, the Bench observed that there is a delay of 3 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee for which the ld.AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit of dealing clerk of the counsel of the assessee. 2.2 I have heard the ld.AR and ld. DR and carefully perused the material available on record. The cause of delay has been explained by the ld.AR of the assessee assessee in the application for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee. The summons could not be served upon by the postal department and returned back as persons are not available at the given addresses. The AO noted that the valuation of the property for the purpose of stamp duty is done regarding the land and area of plot and no valuation has been done for construction on the said plot of land. The assessee was also asked to explain the source of impugned construction cost which was explained by the assessee that he had withdrawn the cash from M/s. P.J. Arts, Proprietorship concern of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the deduction on account of cost of construction while computing the Long Term Capital Gain and thus made the addition. 4.3 The assessee challenged the action of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued summons to the persons through whom assessee claimed to have got the construction work done and payment was made. The AO noted that there was no withdrawal or drawings from the business entity. Therefore, the source of cost of construction remained unexplained. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 4.6 I have considered the rival submission as well as the relevant materials available on record. The assessee has claimed the cost of construction of Rs. 3.83 lacs on account of boundary wall as deduction while computing the Long Term Capital Gain from sale of the property in question. The AO having gone through the sale deed noted that there was no mention of any construction of the building on the land sold by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied in toto. The assessee has claimed the cost of construction at Rs. 3.83 lacs and filed the receipts as well as affidavits of three persons to whom payment was made for the work of cost of construction of boundary wall. Though the AO could not examine these persons for want of service of notice yet the cost of construction of boundary wall could have been otherwise estimated by the AO through expert being DVO. In the absence of carrying out such an exercise of ascertaining the correct cost of construction on the part of the AO, the evidences produced by the assessee cannot be rejected. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim of cost of construction of boundary wall deserves to be allowed. 4.6.1 Before parting w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
