TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 897
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cost of indexation to the building which was never part of land sale affected by the assessee. 3.1 The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,52,19,882/- while computing the short term capital gains without verifying the genuineness of the bills submitted before him more so when such bills were not produced before the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings. 3.2 The CIT(A) erred in deciding the matter of disallowance of Rs. 1,52,19,882/- without giving opportunities to the assessing officer by remanding the matter under Rule 46A of IT Rules,1962. 3.3 The CIT(A) erred in invoking the sub-rule (4) of Rule 46A of IT Rules,1962 when no independent enquiry or production of any document was sought by CIT(A) and on the contrary documents furnished by the assessee on his own including Xerox copy of the bills were accepted without any verification or remand. 3.4 The CIT(A) erred in accepting the claim of the assessee that M/s AGS properties and Development (India) Pvt. Ltd. is wound up without verifying the same by remanding the matter to the assessing officer. 4. For these arid other grounds that may be adduced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers in support of expenses. 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee agitated additions made by the Assessing Officer towards long term capital gain derived from sale of land and short term capital gain computation from transfer of building. The assessee has filed certain additional evidences in the form of photocopies of bills in respect of payment made to M/s. Bharath Polymers & M/s. Devi Designers & Decorations along with value of document and letter of intent / contract awarded by the assessee. The learned CIT(A), after considering relevant facts and also taken note of additional evidences filed by the assessee, deleted additions made towards computation of long term capital gain derived from transfer of land as well as short term capital gain computed from sale of building by holding that as per provisions of section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cost of acquisition of property should also be included in the cost of acquisition of entire assets, including movable assets, if any. The learned CIT(A) also deleted additions towards short term capital gain by considering addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing long term capital gain, the assessee has claimed deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 5,31,65,173/-, which includes consideration paid by the assessee for land as well as building. The Assessing Officer has recomputed indexed cost of acquisition by taking into account cost of land which was paid by the assessee at Rs. 2.61 crores plus applicable stamp duty. The Assessing Officer had ignored cost of building on the ground that assessee has demolished existing old building and has constructed new building. Therefore, the A.O. was of the opinion that cost of existing old building cannot be considered as cost of acquisition. It was the explanation of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that it has paid total consideration of Rs. 4 crores for acquiring property, which includes cost of land as well as building, plant and fittings and thus, as per provisions of section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cost of acquisition includes total amount paid for acquisition of property, including movable asset, if any, and thus, total loss needs to be allowed as deduction. 5. We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through orders of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowance of amount paid to M/s. Bharath Polymers & M/s. Devi Designers & Decorations amounting to Rs. 1,52,19,882/- for construction of building. The Assessing Officer has disallowed payment made to M/s. Bharath Polymers on 24.11.2007 and 09.10.2007 amounting to Rs. 2,64,071/- and Rs. 1,94,471/- on the ground that the assessee could not produce original bills in support of various expenditure incurred for construction of building. It was explanation of the assessee that original bills could not be traced, because building was developed by previous company before amalgamation and thus, it could not locate documents and hence, obtained photocopies of bills from the supplier and produced before the Assessing Officer .The Assessing Officer did not satisfy with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to him, the assessee could not explain payment made to the above party with necessary evidences. 8. We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the assessee produced photocopies of bills issued by M/s. Bharath Polymers for supply for certain materials for construction of building, when i....