Email notice upheld under IT Rules, fair market value determined by sale agreement date, cost disallowance appeal dismissed.

The tribunal upheld the validity of serving notice through email under Sec 282(1)(c) read with rule 127 of the IT Rules, as the appellant failed to update their address. The determination of fair market value for long term capital gain was directed to be as of the sale agreement date by the CIT(A), with the tribunal dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The disallowance of the cost of improvement claimed by the assessee was upheld due to lack of evidence of payment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Service of notice through email deemed valid under Sec 282(1)(c) read with rule 127 of IT Rules.
2. Determination of fair market value for computing long term capital gain.
3. Disallowance of cost of improvement claimed by the assessee.

Issue 1:
The judgment deals with the validity of serving notice through email under Sec 282(1)(c) read with rule 127 of the IT Rules. The appellant failed to receive notices sent via Registered Post, but the notice sent through email was successfully delivered to the provided email ID. The tribunal deemed the notice served through email as valid due to the appellant's failure to update their address. It was noted that despite the notice being served, the appellant did not appear, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal.

Issue 2:
Regarding the determination of fair market value for computing long term capital gain, the AO initially used the value assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The appellant contended that the value should be determined as of the date of the sale agreement, not the date of conveyance. The CIT(A) directed the AO to refer the valuation to the DVO for determining the property value as of the sale agreement date. The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, without delving into the merits of the issue.

Issue 3:
The third issue pertains to the disallowance of the cost of improvement claimed by the assessee. The appellant claimed &8377; 46 lakhs as the cost of improvement for a Nalla Wall constructed by the Municipal Corporation. However, the CIT(A) rejected this claim as the appellant failed to provide evidence of payment. The tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings, stating that indexed cost of improvement can only be claimed if the cost was actually incurred by the assessee. Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee was deemed without merit, and the appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the validity of serving notice through email, the determination of fair market value for calculating capital gain, and the disallowance of claimed cost of improvement. The tribunal upheld the service of notice through email, dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, and rejected the cost of improvement claim by the assessee for lack of evidence of payment.

---