TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e findings of the Ld. CIT(A) as no evidences have been produced even before us. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and no interference is required on this issue. Thus, the Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed. Deduction u/s. 54F - AR argued that the assessee has purchased a residential property and has incurred certain expenditure for renovation - AR also submitted that the proof of expenditure was also provided before the Ld. AO - HELD THAT:- We find from the written submissions and the paper book submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee has claimed renovation expenses which were mostly though self-made vouchers. No cogent evidences are provided before us or before the Ld. Revenue Authorities. In the absence of any material evidence, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and hence no interference is required on this ground. Thus, this Ground No.4 raised by the assessee is dismissed. Restriction of land development expenses - HELD THAT:- We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has reasonably considered the disallowance of expenses to the extent of 20% of the total expenses in the absence of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he property as on 12/5/2013 was Rs. 35 lakhs per acre. However, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has taken the market value which is higher than the SRO value and has also claimed deduction U/s. 54B and 54F of the Act. The Ld. AO issued a show cause notice on 16/12/2016 and the assessee filed his reply on 19/12/2106 before the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO considering the submissions made by the assessee s representative found that the assessee has not furnished any agricultural income during the earlier periods in order to claim deduction U/s. 54B of the Act and therefore rejected the claim made by the assessee U/s. 54B of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO also adopted the SRO value of Rs. 35 lakhs and computed the capital gains accordingly. Further, the Ld. AO also disallowed certain development expenses and assessed the business income at Rs. 68,95,888/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee s Representative submitted that the assessee was carrying on agricultural activities on Metta lands during the earlier two years and hence pleaded that the deduction U/s. 54B shall be allowed to the assessee. The Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per sq yd as cost of acquisition based on the prevailing market value. The Ld. AR pleaded that the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities be quashed. The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. 6. We find from the submission of the Ld. AR that the SRO has provided Rs. 35 lakhs per acre which can be utilized for the purpose of calculating the stamp duty valuation of the said agricultural lands. However, it cannot be considered as a FMV as on 12/5/2013. Similarly the FMV adopted by the assessee at Rs. 90 lakhs per acre also is on the higher side and there cannot be such huge difference between the FMV adopted by the assessee and the SRO value. The Ld. AR also failed to provide any basis for adopting Rs. 90 lakhs per acre as market value. Considering the peculiar circumstances, we are of the considered view that the market value can be estimated at Rs. 60 lakhs per acre and accordingly, the Ld. AO is directed to compute the capital gains for the impugned assessment year. Thus, the grounds no. 2 and 5 raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 7. Ground No.3 is with respect to deduction U/s. 54B of the Act where the assessee has claimed deduction U/s. 54B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee has purchased a residential property and has incurred certain expenditure for renovation. The Ld. AR also submitted that the proof of expenditure was also provided before the Ld. AO. He therefore pleaded that the deduction claimed U/s. 54F be allowed. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. 11. We find from the written submissions and the paper book submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee has claimed renovation expenses amounting to Rs. 5,25,390/- which were mostly though self-made vouchers. No cogent evidences are provided before us or before the Ld. Revenue Authorities. In the absence of any material evidence, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and hence no interference is required on this ground. Thus, this Ground No.4 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 12. With respect to Ground No.6 regarding restriction of land development expenses, the Ld. AR argued that the details of expenses for the purpose of development to the extent of Rs. 70,33,400/- were submitted during the assessment proceedings. However, the Ld. AO has not considered the same and has disallowed 2/3rd of expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
