Capital gains evidence rule: unsupported fractional ownership and deduction claims were rejected, leaving full sale consideration taxable.

In capital gains computation, unsupported claims of fractional ownership and related deductions were rejected because the assessee's documents showed absolute ownership and the authorities' factual findings consistently negatived joint ownership. The claim that only an undivided 1/5th share was transferred failed, so capital gains were assessable on the full sale consideration. Additional transfer-related expenditure was disallowed for want of proof of further stamp duty or other costs. The higher cost of improvement was also rejected because the assessee did not establish actual improvement expenditure, and the Revenue's figure was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee had proved that she owned only an undivided 1/5th share in the property and that capital gains could not be assessed on the entire sale consideration in her hands; (ii) whether the claim for additional expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer was allowable; (iii) whether the assessee was entitled to a higher cost of improvement than that accepted by the Revenue authorities.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee had proved that she owned only an undivided 1/5th share in the property and that capital gains could not be assessed on the entire sale consideration in her hands?

Analysis: The evidence on record did not substantiate joint ownership. The documents relied on by the assessee showed her as the absolute owner from purchase to sale, and the factual findings of the authorities below consistently negatived the claim of a mere fractional share.

Conclusion: The claim of only an undivided 1/5th share was rejected and the entire capital gains were assessable in the assessee's hands.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for additional expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer was allowable?

Analysis: No material was produced to prove any further stamp duty or other transfer-related expenditure beyond what was accepted by the authorities. In the absence of evidence, the claim could not be allowed.

Conclusion: The claim for additional transfer expenses was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessee was entitled to a higher cost of improvement than that accepted by the Revenue authorities?

Analysis: The higher figure allowed by the appellate authority was found to be unsupported by evidence. The Tribunal was justified in restoring the Assessing Officer's figure because the assessee failed to establish actual expenditure on improvement.

Conclusion: The higher claim for cost of improvement was disallowed and the Revenue's figure was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal raised no substantial basis for interference, as the decisive findings on ownership and expenditure were factual and unsupported claims could not be accepted. The assessee did not succeed on the substantive issues decided.

Ratio Decidendi: In capital gains matters, factual findings on ownership and claimed deductions will not be disturbed in the absence of cogent evidence; unsupported claims for fractional ownership, transfer expenses, or improvement costs cannot be accepted.

---