TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 352
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the purpose of calculating the capital gain instead of actual selling price of Rs. 6.50 lacs which was the fair market value at the time of sale as claimed by the assessee without obtaining valuation of fair market value from Valuation Officer in spite of request by the assessee. 2. The ld. CIT(A)-II, Jaipur is further wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming disallowance of the cost of construction of Rs. 2.50 lacs claimed in the computation of capital gains and also disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54 available for residential property. 2.1 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed Ground No. 1. Therefore, the same is dismissed being not pressed. 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 2, brief fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty and registration charges have been levied by the Sub- Registrar on the value of land only. (ii) Vide order sheet entry dated 18-11-2011, the assessee was required to submit water and electricity bill regarding the property sold at Alwar. However, the assessee cold not submit the same. Obviously, there was no construction and hence the question of water electricity does not arise. (iii) As mentioned above in the statements recorded u/s 131 of the buyer Shri Surendra Kumar Sen on 14-12-2011, he categorically denied of there being any construction at all on the impugned plot of land sold by the assessee . (b) The objection of ld. AR regarding the opportunity of cross examination of the buyer Shri Surendra Kumar Sen is not tenable.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submission. Appellant claimed construction cost of plot of land alongwith deduction u/s 54. Assessing Officer disallowed the cost of construction on the ground that in the sale deed, there is no reference of any construction of structure. Appellant submitted affidavits of two persons claiming construction of boundary wall and room and kitchen etc. Assessing Officer asked appellant to produce these persons for examination since the claim of construction was against the facts noted in sale deed. However, appellant did not produce these persons and therefore, the claims made in affidavit could not be confirmed Assessing Officer called the buyer of the property and examined him on oath. The buyer categorically denied any construction on the pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that finding of the ld. CIT(A) that assessee did not ask for cross examination of the buyer Shri Surendra Kumar Sen is not correct as AO has referred to such request in the assessment order. Therefore, the finding of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and opportunity of cross may be given to the assessee and the issue may be set aside. 3.4 On the other hands, the ld. DR contends that courts have held that there is no universal rule that in each and every case, the right of cross examination cannot be granted, it depends on the facts of that case. The assessee gave the names of the contractors i.e. Shri Moolchand (contractor) and Shri Bhupendra Singh, Supervisor and claimed to have made payments through contractor; no evidence of TDS deducted o....