TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the RTC Complex, within the Rajamundhry municipal limits, we find that the estimate made by Ld.CIT(A) is reasonable and hence no interference is required. Thus, the grounds No. 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Cash expenses for the purpose of development of land - The admitted facts are that there are certain expenses incurred by the assessee in the development of land into plots. This was never denied by the Revenue Authorities. The only contention of the Revenue is that since the assessee has incurred certain expenditure by way of cash and documents evidencing by way of self-made vouchers, these expenses are not genuine. The expenses incurred by the assessee in the development of land is also evidenced from the inspection report submitted by the ACIT, Rajamahendravaram. The only dispute is with respect to the amount of expenditure actually incurred by the assessee for the development of land into plots. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly estimated the cost of development at Rs. 2,000/- per sq yd which in our view is reasonable and hence no interference is required on this issue in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly. Thus, Grounds No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad [the Ld. CIT (A)] in Din Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2020-21/1028054190(1), DATED 24/09/2020 for the AY 2016-17 arising out of order passed U/s. 143(3) rws 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ the Act ]. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee a Non-Resident Indian, in response to the notice U/s. 148 of the Act filed his return of income on 31/3/2018 for the AY 2016-17 by declaring a total income at Rs. 2,92,55,358/-. Subsequently, a notice U/s. 143(2) r.w.s 147 and notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, the assessee filed details of the capital gain workings claimed in the return of income along with the documents relied on by the assessee in computation of capital gains. The Ld. AO considering the submissions, assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.9,77,03,500/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-10, Hyderabad. After considering the submissions made by the assessee s representative, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of passing the assessment order. 7. Any other ground of appeal that may be pleaded with the prior approval of the Hon ble ITAT during the course of appellate proceedings. 5. Grounds No. 2 3: The Learned Departmental Representative [Ld. DR]argued that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in estimating the cost of acquisition of the immovable property as on 1/4/1981 at Rs. 350/- per sq yd relying on the market value of the property certified by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Rajahmundry as on 17/2/1987. The Ld. DR argued that this value cannot be adopted as on 1/4/1981. The Ld. DR further submitted that as per the letter issued by the District Registrar, Rajamahendravaram the value of the land is Rs. 8000/- per Acre as on 1/4/1981, which translates to Rs.1.65 per sq.yard. The Ld. DR pleaded that the Ld. AO has rightly taken this rate while adopting the cost of acquisition and thereby computing the capital gains on the sale of land. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Ld. AO has rightly computed the cost of improvement at Rs. 400/- per sq yd due to the fact that the assessee has paid most of these expenses in the form of cash and has claimed various payments by way of self-made vouch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal asset would ordinarily fetch on sale in the open market on the relevant date; and (ii) where the price referred to in sub-clause (i) is not ascertainable such price as may be determined in accordance with the rules made under this Act; 8. From the above it is clear that the fair market value of a capital asset is the value which would ordinarily fetch on sale in the open market on the relevant date and not on the value adopted for stamp duty purposes. In the absence of a confirmed fair market value as on 1/4/1981, the Ld. AO has also not referred the matter to the DVO for valuation of the property as on 1/4/1981. We also find that the Ld. CIT (A) has estimated the value at Rs. 350/- per sq yd based on the valuation provided by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Rajahmundry as on 17/2/1987. In the absence any evidence of fair market value, not being provided by both assessee and Revenue, we are therefore of the considered view that, since the property is located within a distance of one kilometre from the RTC Complex, within the Rajamundhry municipal limits, we find that the estimate made by Ld.CIT(A) is reasonable and hence no interference is required. Thus, the grounds No. 2 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 70,000 and the balance addition is sustained. 11. The expenses incurred by the assessee in the development of land is also evidenced from the inspection report submitted by the ACIT, Rajamahendravaram. The only dispute is with respect to the amount of expenditure actually incurred by the assessee for the development of land into plots. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly estimated the cost of development at Rs. 2,000/- per sq yd which in our view is reasonable and hence no interference is required on this issue in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly. Thus, Grounds No. 4, 5 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 12. Grounds No.1 and 7 raised by the Revenue are general in nature and therefore they need not be adjudicated. 13. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. C.O. No. 12/Viz/2021 (AY: 2016-17) (By Assessee) 14. This Cross Objection is arising out of the appeal ITA No. 245/Viz/2020. The Grounds raised by the assessee in this Cross Objection are in support of the decision taken by the Ld. CIT(A). While adjudicating the Revenue s appeal, since we decided the issue on merits and dismissed the Revenue s appeal, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtly for the sale of immovable properties from seven buyers totaling to Rs. 2,32,04,500/-. Section 269SS of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2015 wef 1/6/2015 stipulates that no person shall take or accept from any other person, any loan or deposit or any specified sum, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account. The specified sum has been defined in the section 269SS of the Act as follows: Specified sum means any sum of money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation to transfer of an immovable property, whether or not the transfer takes place. 22. From the plain reading of the above section, it is noted that any person is barred from receiving from any amount otherwise by cheque or through banking channels in relation to transfer of the immovable property. Section 269SS of the Act prohibits receipt of any amount by way of cash in relation to the transfer of any immovable property. The Memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance Bill 2015 with respect to amendment proposed w.e.f 1/6/2015 in section 269SS is reproduced below: In order to curb generation of b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
