2015 (9) TMI 1677

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition and allowed the claim u/s. 54EC of REC bond of Rs. 50,00,000/-, hutment charges paid of Rs. 5,00,000/- and brokerage paid of Rs. 3,12,500/-. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the fresh evidences and submission without giving any opportunity to the A.O. being heard on the principles of law and natural justice and thereby violated the provision of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules." 2. Briefly stated, the relevant material facts are like this. During the course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has sold plot of land to M/s Devdeep Mlls Developers Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 7,81,00,000/-. The assessee h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... explained and the identity is proved as the affidavit is filled. In the absence of any adverse finding by A.O., the content of affidavits are deemed to be accepted. Therefore, the brokerage of Rs. 3,12,500/- should be allowed while computing the capital gain. The ground of appeal is allowed and the addition of Rs. 3,12,500/- is deleted. 4. The second ground of appeal is regarding disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000/- paid by the appellant as Hutment expenses. The facts of the case are that the appellant was the owner of the property but the property was occupied by four persons in hut. The appellant has paid Rs. 5,00,000/- to hut owners for giving vacant possession of land. The Assessing Officer has mentioned in the assessment order that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation proves that the land was occupied by hutment. The appellant has made payment after executing agreement which is notarised. Therefore, the payment made cannot be doubted. As the vacant possession was necessary for sale of land, the expenditure incurred for payment of hutment charges is available while computing long term capital gain. This ground of appeal is therefore allowed and the disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000/- is deleted." 3. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved of the relief so granted by the ld. CIT(A) and is in appeal before us. 4. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record, we see no reasons to interfere in the well reasoned relief granted by the ld. CIT(A). As he rightly observes, the ded....