TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made towards long term capital gains. I.T.A. No. 2962/Mds/2014 2. Brief facts of the case are that no return of income was filed by the assessee, an individual for the assessment year 2009-10 under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short]. In the course of survey under section 133A of the Act in another case, the Assessing Officer has learnt that the assessee has sold properties and capital gains arose from the sale. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 09.08.2011. In response thereto, the assessee filed a return of income on 25.09.2012 admitting total income at Rs..9,13,050/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al consideration was, in fact, Rs..90,09,000/-. Adopting the actual sale consideration received, the assessee has worked out the long term capital gains arising from this sale as Rs..6,39,366/- in the return of income filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. 5.2 With regard to working of the cost of acquisition of land, the assessee has adopted a purchase cost of Rs..23,50,000/-, the indexed value of which was taken as Rs..52,80,695/- being market value of the property as on that date and the actual amount paid by the assessee. The assessee was asked to produce evidence, if any. The assessee has not filed any returns of income for that period and hence this claim was nowhere substantiated. The assessee also admitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the claim of the assessee. 5.6 The assessee has adopted a cost of Rs..4,95,000/- as furniture cost. The assessee has not produced any evidence to substantiate her claim. However, considering the fact that the assessee would have put up some wooden furniture for the bakery etc. a sum of Rs..1,00,000/- was considered more than adequate and reasonable. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has worked out the indexed cost of furniture items to Rs..2,25,000/-. 5.7 The assessee has claimed a sum of Rs..3,25,000/- towards selling expenses and brokerage. No details of selling expenses were filed before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of fairness and justice, the Assessing Officer has allowed Rs..2,75,000/- as selling expenses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t as per the document at Rs. 3,80,000/- and has fixed the total cost at Rs. 4,50,000/- after giving an allowance for the transfer expenses. 5.4. The assessing officer has called for the details of the cost as valued by the appellant at Rs. 52,80,695/-. The appellant had no evidence to offer, except saying that this was the actual cost paid by him. Apart from stating this, the appellant had no evidence to buyer, etc. The appellant in his submission relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in 253 ITR 454, that a document should be read as a whole and it is not possible to ignore a part of the document, and accept another part. The said citation is not at all applicable to the facts of the case. The appellant has h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re as against the claim of Rs. 4,50,000/- claimed by the appellant. Here also, the claim has been made without any evidence but general statements. In absence of any evidence, the assessing officer's decision is sustained. Ground No. 2.6 is not allowed. 5.7. Ground No 2.1 pertains to a general statement that the assessing officer is not justified in levying tax u/s 143(3)/ rw 147 on the appellant. The ground is squarely rejected as the return itself has been filed after the survey in the hands of the buyer, and detection of the actual value of sale consideration. 5.8 Ground No. 2.2 and 2.3 are general in nature and are not allowed. 6. In result, the appeal is dismissed." 7. Admittedly, the assessee has not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nion of the DVO for estimating the cost of acquisition of land. The Assessing Officer has observed that it would sound incredulous that the market value of the property was 6 times of the guideline value that too in a small town such as Attur way back in 1993. However, the Assessing Officer has not justified saying that there was no appreciation on the value of land acquired in the year 1993 and sold in the year 2009. Either in the village or in the city, there would be some appreciation on the value of the property or especially from the year 2006 onwards, there was appreciation more than double the value of the cost of the property. For assessing the value of furniture as well as other expenses such as brokerage, etc. also the Assessing O....