TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound that the said fact having been proved by the Appellant before the Statutory Authority and the same having been accepted in the absence of any material other than mere assertion alleging that the appellant had entered into a subsequent agreement with one A.Mubaraq Ali, would show that the cost of acquisition was Rs.1.80 Crores, was rightly rejected by the Tribunal and other Lower Authorities, since weight must be given to a statement/ document approved by a Statutory Authority vis-a-vis a self serving document which has no sanctity. The same is a finding of fact based on consideration of the material on record and thus, does not warrant any interference by this court. Claim of deduction of amounts paid to Anand - As found by the Tribunal that the order of the Assessing Officer fixing the payment for the alleged services by the said Anand in the absence of any evidence let in, at Rs. 2 lakhs was in order and enhanced it to 7% by the First Appellate Authority, in the absence of any evidence, was unacceptable. Secondly, the Tribunal was prompted by the fact that the said claim of deduction was contrary to Section 48 In case of transfer of Capital Asset, deduction is allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , this court has no other option except to dispose the appeals, on merits. 3.Before examining the correctness of the Tribunal s order, which has been put to challenge in these appeals, it is relevant to set out the facts briefly: (i)The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of lorry operator. On 31.10.2006, she had returned loss of Rs.20,74,581/-. Thereafter, she filed her revised return on 31.03.2007 declaring an income of Rs.47,24,400/-, representing the same as income from business of real estate and salary from partnership firm of Rs.67,80,982/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively. (ii)According to the appellant, she had purchased a site measuring 63,551 sq. ft. in Ambattur Industrial Estate on 10.03.2005 for Rs.1.40 crores. Soon thereafter, an agreement for sale was entered into on 15.04.2005 and the same was thereafter sold for a sum of Rs.3.43 crores vide sale deed dated 31.08.2005. In her original return, she had not disclosed the said transfer and in the revised return, she disclosed the said transfer receipts as business income and computed the net profit on the sale of land as follows: GROSS SALE CONSIDERATION Rs.3,43,00, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment on all counts by rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant and allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue, by the order impugned herein. Therefore, the assessee is before this court with the present tax case appeals. 4.The present appeals are filed by the Assessee/Appellant challenging the order of the Tribunal confirming the order of the Lower Authorities insofar as treating the receipts under the head capital gains , while rejecting the claim of the appellant that the receipts represented business income and restoring the order of assessment insofar as the claim of deduction of the amounts paid to Anand was restricted to a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, though the same was enhanced to 7% by the First Appellate Authority. The present appeals also challenge the determination of the cost of acquisition of land at Rs.1.40 Crores rejecting the claim of the appellant that the same was Rs.1.80 Crores. 5.Heard the submission of Mrs. Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and also perused the documents enclosd in the typed set of papers, including the orders of the Authorities below. 6.We are of the view that the appeals challenging the order of the Tribunal, may have t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this court. (b) Cost of purchase/ acquisition of Industrial Site Finding of fact:- The Tribunal affirmed the order of the lower authorities in fixing the cost of acquisition at Rs.1.40 Crores and rejecting the claim of the appellant that the cost of acquisition was Rs.1.80 Crores. All the Lower Authorities starting from the Assessing officer, First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal have found as a matter of fact that the cost of acquisition was Rs.1.40 Crores, based on the registered sale deed, a document registered with the statutory authority. The Tribunal found that the said fact having been proved by the Appellant before the Statutory Authority and the same having been accepted in the absence of any material other than mere assertion alleging that the appellant had entered into a subsequent agreement with one A.Mubaraq Ali, would show that the cost of acquisition was Rs.1.80 Crores, was rightly rejected by the Tribunal and other Lower Authorities, since weight must be given to a statement/ document approved by a Statutory Authority vis-a-vis a self serving document which has no sanctity. The same is a finding of fact based on consideration of the material on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
