TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the asset sold was a capital asset. Accordingly, this ground of appeal nos.1, 2 stands dismissed. Allowing the cost of construction of the shed as cost of acquisition - Whether CIT(A) had fell in serious error in allowing the cost of industrial shed on said land and also relying upon a new material which was not furnished before the AO during the course of assessment proceeding and without complying with Rule 46A of the Rules? - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the assessment order, it would be evident that this valuer s report was not furnished before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) ought not to have allowed the cost of construction at 900 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess . The brief facts of the subject matter of appeal is set out by the Assessing Officer in para 5.1 of the assessment order. It was claimed that the said land was an agricultural land placing reliance earlier in 7/12 extracts, since the lands were situated beyond 8 kilo-meters from nearest municipal corporation as well as population was less than 10 thousands as per latest instruction, the claim of exemption of gains arising on sale of said property was made before Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the respondent-assessee was a dealer in lands, therefore, the profit arising on sale of such land should be assessed under the head Profits and gains of business . The Assessing Officer also taken into c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not agricultural land stands settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Therefore, the issue what the asset sold was an agricultural land does not survive for consideration. As regards to the issue whether the profit arising on sale of such land should be assessed under the head Income from capital gains , the Revenue submits that the intention of the respondentassessee is to earn the rental income and, therefore, the property sold should be treated as business asset not as a capital asset. It is further stated that the ld. CIT(A) had allowed the cost of construction of the shed at 900 per sq. ft. placing reliance on the valuer s report, which was not placed before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, 2 stands dismissed. 8. Ground of appeal nos.3 and 4 challenges the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in allowing the cost of improvement, it is contended that the ld. CIT(A) had fell in serious error in allowing the cost of industrial shed on said land and also relying upon a new material which was not furnished before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceeding and without complying with Rule 46A of the Rules. 9. On the other hand, ld. AR submits that the ld. CIT(A) allowed the cost of acquisition at 900 per sq. ft. is based on the valuer s report. 10. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the assessment order, it would reveal that though the respondent-assessee made a cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
