9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reasons recorded as per which information available with the Department shows that the assessee has sold an immovable property vide document No.1679/2015 for a consideration of Rs. 1,06,48,000/-. Therefore, the assessment has been reopened and called upon the assessee to file the return of income. The assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and determined the total income at Rs. 34,19,920/- by making addition of Rs. 32,95,934/- towards disallowance of indexed cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee and expenses of transfer. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT (A) but could not succeed. The learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the additions made by the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch the cost of construction during the financial year 1999-2000 was worked out to Rs. 15,98,000/- which comes to Rs. 726 per sft. The learned CIT (A) after taking into all relevant details and also statement of total income filed by the assessee observed that when the assessee himself claimed cost of construction at Rs. 500 per sft, it is impossible to believe the valuation report submitted by the registered valuer to arrive at the cost of Rs. 726/per sft. Therefore, taking into account the cost of construction claimed by the assessee which was at Rs. 500 per sft and cost of construction adopted by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 250/sft has directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the cost of construction at Rs. 380/sft and compute the indexed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the registered valuer to arrive at a cost of construction at Rs. 726 per sft when the appellant himself claimed cost of construction at Rs. 500 per sft. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant facts has rightly allowed Rs. 380 per sft and therefore, the order should be upheld. He further submitted that as per records expenses of transfer, except 2 DDs, no other evidence was filed to establish Mr. Murari Raj was the tenant of the property. Therefore, the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) rightly adopted the construction rate and their orders should be upheld. 9. I have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pporting evidences. At the same time, the assessee justified the cost of construction of Rs. 500/- along with valuation report. Therefore, in my considered view when the appellant is able to establish/substantiate the indexed cost of construction with necessary evidences including the valuation report, the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) ought to have accepted the cost of construction as claimed by the assessee. Thus, I set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the cost of construction as claimed by the assessee. 10. In so far as the expenses of transfer of Rs. 6.00 lakhs being the amount paid to Shri K. Murari Raj is concerned, the appellant claimed that Shri K Murari Raj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
