2018 (12) TMI 1380

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....towards market value of Floor Space Index (FSI) sold prior to the sale of land and building. Briefly, facts relating to this issue are the assessee company is a manufacturer and dealer in chemicals and solvents. For the year under dispute the assessee filed its return of income on 11.10.2007 declaring income of Rs. 27,905/-. Assessment in case of the assessee was originally completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act determining total income at Rs. 1,47,67,446/- after making addition of Long term capital gain of Rs. 1,84,62,000/- and couple of other additions. The assessment order so passed was challenged by the assessee before the CIT(A) and, thereafter, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the submissions made by the assessee dispo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from the market value of Rs. 1,04,55,000/- determined by the DVO. The Assessing Officer after considering submissions of the assessee did not find merit in them. He observed, though, the assessee made the aforesaid claim before the DVO however, the DVO on the basis of information obtained from Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) has found the claim of sale of FSI of 15,000 sq. ft. to be without any basis considering the fact that FSI of 2,550 sq. mt was available to the assessee when the property was sold in the year 2006. Thus, on the basis of the observations of the DVO, the Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim of deduction of Rs. 57,15,400/-. Though, the assessee challenged the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer before the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee has not filed any fresh evidence or brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer any fresh fact to demonstrate that FSI of 15,000 sq. ft was actually sold. Therefore, the claim made by the assessee remained unproved. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A). 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Though, the assessee has claimed that before the sale of land and factory building on 14.06.2006, it has sold FSI to the extent of 15,000 sq. ft. to Rajashri Builders through Narendra Silk Mills, however, except an unregistered agreement, dated 27.03.1986, and letter written to Rajashri Builders on 11.04.1986, the assessee has not brought any other evidence on record to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... such claim cannot be accepted on mere face value. In these circumstances, when the assessee has failed to prove its claim at the stage of departmental proceedings as well as before us by furnishing any cogent documentary evidence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, the grounds raised are dismissed. 7. In ground no.4, assessee has challenged the decision of the Assessing Officer in applying the provisions of section 50C(2) after completion of the assessment proceedings. At the outset, we must observe that the learned AR has not made any specific argument on this ground. However, as could be seen from the material on record, before the Assessing Officer also the assessee has not ....