TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... /the assessee's detailed paper book running into 140 pages comprising of written submissions before the ITO, the CIT(A), purchased deed dated 17.02.1994, sale deed dated 10.05.2010, copies of inspection letter, mutation certificate and case law; stand perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee's pleadings her concise grounds of appeal raise the sole substantive issue of correctness of long term capital gains addition amounting to Rs.15,43,807/- made in the course of assessment and affirmed in the lower appellate proceedings. Both the learned representatives takes us to CIT(A)'s detailed discussions reading as under:- "3. Decision: The only issue in this case is the Long Term capital gains ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was paid a sum of Rs. 18lakhs vide draft number 109539 dated 30.04.2010 drawn in favour of Punjab & Sind Bank. The cost of acquisition of the said plot of land was Rs. 87,920/- as on 17.02.1994. Sale consideration of Rs. 18 lakhs is not disputed. The total cost of acquisition of Rs. 87,920/- is not also disputed. The contention of the appellant is that when the land was purchased it was agricultural land and hence it should not be subjected to tax. In this regard, the AO collected information u/s.133(6) from the Chairman of Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality regarding the nature of land. In reply it was reported that the said piece of land was situated in Ward No. 34 within the Municipal limit of Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality. This fact has a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e consideration of Rs. 18 lakhs. The AO has granted indexation on account of long term holding of the asset. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the value of the land has increased because of the improvement of the external environment should not be brought to capital gain tax is not acceptable. The last legal argument taken by the assessee is as follows:- "When law requires deduction of indexed cost of improvement, it is clear that cost of improvement has to be ascertained, computed and indexed with cost of inflation index to allow requisite deduction. When there is improvement but cost of improvement is nil, it cannot be indexed with cost inflation index, so the provision for computation fails and therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....diture which is deductible in computing the income chargeable under the head "Interest on securities", "Income from house property". "Profits and gains of business or profession," or "Income from other sources ", and the expression "improvement" shall be construed accordingly." On perusal of the above, it has been specifically laid out that cost of improvement constitutes all direct expenditure of capital nature made by the assessee for making addition or alteration to the capital asset. In this case, it is admitted fact that no direct expenditure has been made by the appellant for any kind of improvement for the capital asset. Accordingly, the AO has rightly taken the cost of improvement as Nil. In this case, there is no dispute r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from facts in the case of the appellant in the impugned year of appeal. In the case of appellant the issue is capital gains arising on sale of land. However, in the case of Suman Tea(supra) the issue before the Hon'ble Tribunal was capital gains on sale of timber which is a self generating asset. d) Home Industries And Co. 1977 (2) TMI 24-BOMBAY HIGH COURT. This case again pertains to A.Yr.1960-61 and is regarding transfer of goodwill and is not applicable to the facts of the case. Assessee has relied on various case laws on the issue of self generating assets not chargeable to tax pertaining to the period prior to insertion of section 55-which now defines cost of acquisition and cost of improvement. In view ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....renders the entire computation of capital gains as nil in view of various judicial precedents discussed in CIT(A)'s order under challenge (supra). 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. We find no merit in assessee's claim seeking cost of improvement of the impugned capital asset. We make it clear that she assessee has not produced even a single expenditure voucher or her oral deposition specifying the nature of such an improvement made to her capital asset. It is in view of this clinching fact only that the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) have rejected her claim to be not even prima facie proved. The CIT(A) has further made reference to sec. 55(1)(b) (supra) that cost of improvement means expenditure of ....