2016 (8) TMI 1226

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2010 of ITO Ward 2(1), Ujjain [hereinafter referred to as the AO]. 2. First, we will decide the appeal in I.T.A.No. 703/Ind/2015 - A.Y. 2008-09. I.T.A.No. 703/Ind/2015: 3. Ground no.1 relates to addition of Rs. 6,21,000/- by applying the provisions of sec 50-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and ground no. 2 relates to maintaining the disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of Dalali paid by the assessee in respect of the property sold by him. 4 Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee has sold property for a consideration of Rs. 29,00,000/-, which was valued by Stamp Duty Officer at Rs. 35,21,000/-. Therefore, the AO asked to explain as to why sale consideration should not be considered at....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... noted that the assessee has not furnished any evidence in regard to cost of improvement at Rs. 5,80,000/- and cost of Dalali of Rs. 1 lakh. Therefore, such expenses are claimed as after thought and that is after filing revised computation of income. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 6,71,000/- was confirmed. 7. Before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee has objected the valuation as adopted by the Sub Registrar and also requested to refer the same to the DVO, but the same was not referred and similar arguments were taken as before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee requested that the AO may be directed to adopt the sale consideration as declared by the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....u/s 54F of the Act of Rs. 11,50,000/- without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submission made before him. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of ld. AO by not allowing the deduction of Rs. 5,80,000/- as claimed by the assessee on account of cost of improvement in respect of property sold by her without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submission made before him. 11 Facts apropos of the above grounds are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 7.2.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 2,46,680/- declaring total income of Rs. 2,46,680/-, which was assessed u/s 143(3) on 24.11.2010 at Rs. 9,16,680/- by making addition of Rs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the assessee submitted that the assessee has constructed second floor on 26.04.2007. The construction expenses were debited in a capital account at Rs. 11.50 lakhs. The copy of certificate issued by A.N. Associates are filed at paper book page nos. 25- 26 of the compilation. _ 15 It was contended that the construction of second floor is eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. For this proposition, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance in the case of P. V. Narsimhan, 47 taxmann 89 (Mad) and ACIT vs. Shri Gurmeet Singh, I.T.A.No. 1018/Chd/2010. As regards disallowance of cost of construction expenses the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that there was no reference for disallowance of....