2018 (12) TMI 1250

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....018, without discussing or taking into consideration the documentary evidences produced and submissions made by the appellant is opposed to law, facts and evidences of the case. 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by not allowing the claim of improvements and the indexed cost thereof in spite of proof submitted. 3. The learned CIT(Appeals), erred in overlooking the fact that stamp duty and registration charges incurred have not been allowed by the assessing officer, while computing the cost of acquisition of the acquired land. 4. For this and other grounds and documents that may be submitted at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the Hon.Tribunal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ost of improvement on the said property at Rs. 8,000 per cent. The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee did not claim any cost of improvement in the original return of income filed, the same cannot be entertained. Accordingly the assessment was completed by reducing the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 2,52,918 from the total compensation received for 28 cents of land. The Assessing Officer determined the income on account of LTCG at Rs. 14,20,900 (16,73,815 - 2,52,918). 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order in determining the LTCG at Rs. 14,20,900, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The Copies of Notarized English translation of the documents and copies of translated pages of the note book, whe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the CIT(A) that no evidence was produced for incurring of cost of improvement is incorrect. 5.1 The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, strongly supported the orders of the Income-tax authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The solitary issue that was argued before us is the disallowance of the claim of indexed cost of improvement. The assessee had produced the original purchase deed executed for the financial year 1993-1994 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,54,360. In the said sale deed, the description of the property is enumerated as paddy field. The assessee has also produced a copy of the land acquisition notice u/s 9(13) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, wher....