TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 57
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircumstances of the assessee's case. 3.1 The addition sustained by the CIT(A) is contrary to the evidence filed before him and the inferences drawn are without any evidence in as much as, without their being any building, the assessee would not have derived rental income, which was offered to tax and the assessee has been paying power charges etc. to run the factory initially before it was let out and disallowing the cost is purely on suspicion and surmise and therefore, the same requires to be deleted. 4. The ld.CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining a sum of Rs. 2,89,000/- out of the agricultural income declared by the assessee as income from other sources under the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee's case. 4.1 The addition made is purely on suspicion and surmise, assumptions and presumptions and therefore, the same requires to be allowed. 5. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon 'ble CCIT/DG, the assessee denies himself liable to be charged to interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee's case and the levy deserves to be cancelled. 6. For the above and other grounds that ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....computed the capital gains as under; 1. Sale consideration Rs.24,00,000 Less: Indexed cost of acquisition a. Rs. 28,544*632/223 (paid in 1993) Rs. 80,898 b. Rs. 22,37 (18307+740+3190) paid in 2009 (difference of Rs. 46,851-28,544+stamp duty + regn.) Rs. 22,237 Long term capital gain Rs.22,96,867 Submission of the ld. AR was that the plot was acquired by the assessee from KIADB on 26-10-1990 for establishing printing press. As per the ld. AR, the construction of the factory shed was based on plan which was submitted and approved by Dy. Development Officer, KIADB, Zonal Office, Mysore on 25-06- 1993. The ld. AR stated that a Chartered Engineer had certified the existence of building and fixed the value of the building at Rs. 2,71,000/- based on his visit to the premises on 06-12-1996. The ld. AR also relied on copies of communication to electricity and power connection in support. The ld. AR also pointed out that the premises were let out for three years and the rental income was offered to tax in the return filed. Strong reliance was also placed on valuation report dated 04-01-2010 of a bank valuer named Shri Yogish Rao,D.V. As per the ld. AR the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-cum-sale agreement dated 9th day of February month one thousand nine hundred & ninety three made between the vender of the one part and the purchaser of the other part, the vendor agreed to sell to his, purchaser upon the performance and observance by the purchaser of the obligations and conditions contained in the said agreement and the purchaser agreed to purchase, all that piece of land and premises known as plot nos. 265S of Hebbal Industrial Area, situated in sy.no.344 of Hebbal village Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, Mysore District containing by admesurements 967.00 sq.mtr, or thereabouts and morefully described in the Schedule hereunder written and delineated on the plan annexed hereto and thereon surrounded by a red colour boundary line together with the buildings and erections standing and being thereon and together with all rights, easements, privileges, advantages and appurtenances whatsoever pertaining to the said property except and reserving unto the vendor all mines and minerals in and under the said land or any part thereof". No doubt, the cost of the property mentioned in the purchase deed is only Rs. 46,851/-and relevant para is re-produced hereunder; "Now this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee is relying on the valuation report dated 04-01-2010 of Shri Yogis Rao, D.V in which it is mentioned that the cost of construction was Rs. 2,55,000/-. As per the assessee this valuation report was obtained by the purchaser for raising a loan. Even if we accept the contention of the assessee that there was indeed a building in the plot, it is a fact that the balance sheet of the assessee did not reflect the cost of the building. On the other hand, it is an admitted position, that the HUF of which the assessee is the Karta had filed its return showing the cost of the shed in its balance sheet. The said HUF was also assessed to tax. When all these are seen together, in our opinion, it is clear that the building was owned by HUF, whereas the land was owned by the assessee. In such a situation, for computing the capital gains the assessee could not have deducted the cost of construction, since the construction did not belong to the assessee. Nevertheless, we find that the ld., CIT(A) in all fairness, had directed the AO to give the benefit of the cost of shed, as shown by the HUF in its balance sheet, while computing the capital gains of the assesee. As already mentioned by u....