Tribunal emphasizes credible evidence in capital gain calculation, denies construction cost deduction under section 54.

The Tribunal upheld the decision to adopt stamp duty value for calculating capital gain instead of actual selling price, emphasizing the significance of credible evidence. The appellant's failure to provide proof supporting the construction claim resulted in the disallowance of the cost of construction and deduction claimed under section 54. The Tribunal affirmed the lower authorities' findings, highlighting the importance of the sale deed and lack of credible evidence to support the construction claim. The appellant's appeal was dismissed based on insufficient evidence.

---

---

Issues:
1. Adoption of stamp duty value for calculating capital gain instead of actual selling price.
2. Disallowance of cost of construction and deduction claimed u/s 54.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Adoption of Stamp Duty Value
The appellant contested the adoption of stamp duty value for calculating capital gain instead of the actual selling price, claiming the fair market value was lower. The appellant's request for valuation from the Valuation Officer was not fulfilled. The AO disallowed the claim based on various observations, including the absence of construction on the sold land as per the sale deed and buyer's statement. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the construction claim and denial of the buyer regarding any construction on the land. The appellant's argument for cross-examination was rejected, stating that the buyer's statement and sale deed sufficed as evidence. The Tribunal affirmed the lower authorities' decision, highlighting the importance of the sale deed and lack of credible evidence to support the construction claim.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Cost of Construction and Deduction u/s 54
Regarding the disallowance of the cost of construction and deduction claimed u/s 54, the appellant failed to produce the contractors or substantiate the construction claim. The absence of any reference to construction in the sale deed and the buyer's denial of any construction on the land strengthened the AO's decision. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld the AO's findings, emphasizing the appellant's failure to provide credible evidence to support the construction claim. The contention for cross-examination was dismissed, stating that the evidence on record was adequate to establish the lack of construction. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was dismissed, affirming the disallowance of the construction cost and deduction u/s 54F of the Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions, emphasizing the importance of credible evidence to support claims and the significance of the sale deed in property transactions. The appellant's failure to substantiate the construction claim and provide necessary evidence led to the disallowance of the cost of construction and deduction u/s 54F.

---