TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue has challenged the order of the tribunal by filing appeal before the Hon'ble High court of Kerala. The High Court in its order dated 20/07/2015 has confirmed the findings of the CIT(Appeals) with respect to fair market value of the land as on 1.04.1981 and has set aside the issue on the claim of the assessee for indexed cost of improvements with a direction to decide the issue afresh with reference to the materials on record and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The brief facts of the case are given below: The respondent has sold land inherited by him through family partition prior to 01/04/1981 and claimed indexed cost of acquisition and improvements. The Assessing Officer has rejected the claim of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....djacent to the assessee's in the same survey number 1888. The property belonging to CPN Brothers was acquired by the Government vide its notification dated 02/02/1979. The land acquisition Thahasildhar fixed the market value @Rs.2464/- per are as per award number 6/85 inLAC 31/84/B1/KIT dated 30/03/1985 as against a claim of Rs. 4,000/- per cent made by CPN Brothers, which was approved by the District Collector, Trivandrum. On a reference application filed by CPN Brothers, the Addl. Sub Judge, Trivandrum fixed the value at Rs. 5,000/- per are, i.e., Rs. 2024 per cent as on 01/04/1981 vide his order in LAR 111/87 dated 22/01/1993. The Assessing Officer adopted the fair market value at Rs. 2,300/- after applying 5% increase for every year to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts and materials on record and allowed Rs. 37,23,000/- towards cost of improvement. 6. The Learned DR has submitted that the assessee has claimed very large amount as improvements without adequate details and supporting documents. The opening cash balance shown by the assessee is also not properly explained. The main contention of the learned DR was that the assessee or his family members were not income tax assesses and the expenses for improvements were not made from bank accounts. He also reiterated that the land was subjected to satellite survey and the images obtained during the survey does not show any improvements in the particular land. The learned DR during the course of argument also submitted that the 60% allowance given ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst this is only because the amount involved is huge. Once the percentage is accepted it is unfair on the part of the ld. DR to plea for more disallowance for the simple reason that the amount involved is high. The Counsel also pointed out that wealth tax assessment was carried out in respect of the said land by taking the sale value of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- in AY 2008-09 and depleting at 2% each year and arriving at Rs. 3,45,88,806/- as on 31.03.2003 and this itself shows that substantial improvements were made to the land in question. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts and records of the case. It is a fact that the assessee has filed a detailed cash flow shown different sources from which the money has been brough....