TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1687
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... during the AY under consideration, the assessee along with two other family members had entered into a sale cum general power of attorney with M/s Mahanagar Realtors in respect of property at Sy.No. 96, Begumpet Hyderabad admeasuring 1345 sq.yds. or 1224.58 sq. mts. Original holding and after effecting 138 sq.yds in road widening, the total land is 1206.5 sq.yds. for a consideration of Rs. 45 lakhs as per the deed. The AO further observed that the value of the property given by Sub-Registrar Vallabhnagar on reverse side of the deed is Rs. 1,32,71,500/-. 2.1 The assessee had filed his return of income declaring a capital gain of Rs. 58,700/- and stated that the total sale receipts of the above property was Rs. 45 lakhs and his shar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee and referring to the provisions of section 50C of the Act, treated the sale consideration of property at Rs. 1,32,71,500/- as against Rs. 45,00,000/- admitted by the assessee. 2.6 The assessee had claimed an amount of Rs. 3,54,600/- being paid towards protection and the same was supported by affidavits/vouchers. Accordingly, the AO worked out the cost of improvement at Rs. 6,32,732/-. 2.7 Further, the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs. 3,06,000/- being fees paid towards advocate. On verification of the vouchers produced, the AO noticed that the assessee had produced an affidavit for only Rs. 1,06,000/- and produced self made vouchers for the balance amount. Accordingly, the AO accepted Rs. 1,06,000/- towards ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are not amenable for any further verification. He, therefore, upheld the action of the AO. 6. As regards the assessee's claim of expenditure of Rs. 4,45,600/- towards land levelling, construction of compound wall and a room, CIT(A) observed that after going through the valuation report, it was noticed that the valuer did not give any basis for his valuation except stating that it is based on his professional experience, whereas, AO has gone by the Government value which is yardstick to be followed. He further observed that in comparison the valuation report does not specify any parameters or comparable instances as to why the valuation should not be Rs. 450/- but should be Rs. 650/-. In view of the above observations, the CIT(A) held th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee that he had to sell the property under extreme distress because of several unresolved disputes, police cases and litigation for more than 20 years. 2. The Id. CIT (Appeal) has erred in confirming the view taken by learned ITO, in allowing of Rs. 1,06,OOO/- only out of the total expenditure incurred towards advocate fee of Rs. 3,06,000/- on the basis that the remaining amount is supported only by self made voucher. The Assessee begs to point out that the fees paid is acknowledged by the recipient and it is humbly submitted that the CIT(appeals) ought to have appreciated that for litigating in more than 10 ongoing matters over 20 years the legal cost would be far more than 1.06 lac's allowed. 3. The Id. CIT (Appeal) h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntly. He brought to our notice that there is no dispute in the family but there are other outside parties, who are interested in the property, pending litigations in the courts are evident, the relevant papers are submitted before the CIT(A) and AO. The same was overlooked by the ld. CIT(A) while passing the order. He submitted that as per the guidelines for valuation of immovable properties, 2009 issued by the Directorate of Income-tax, with reference to methods of valuation Chapter 5, item 5.2.1.3 factors of adjustment, disputes on rights and encumbrances, there is adjustment proposed to the extent of 30%, he prayed that this should be extended to this case as the litigations were continued after sale of land existed. 9. Ld. DR, on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee, but, signed by the lawyers who are in receipt of legal fees for representing in various cases pending in the courts. These expenses are genuine. At the same time, Ld. DR opposed the submission and submitted that the vouchers submitted are not genuine. 12. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that assessee has legal disputes with the parties, who are claiming to be the owners of the land. Considering the same, in our view, assessee might have spent the same defending the cases. Since these vouchers are self-made, we remit this issue back to the file of AO in order to give one more opportunity to assessee to file proper confirmation from the respective lawyers who received legal f....