2022 (9) TMI 305

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s it is prejudicial to the appellant as it is opposed to law and circumstances of the case :- 1. The AO was not correct in restricting the cost of site sold to Rs.22,33,252 from Rs.49,79,511 as claimed u/s 57 under income from other sources. 2. The AO and the CIT(A) have not appreciated the facts that the appellant has sold developed sites and claimed development cost, which is spent by developer (purchaser) as cost of site sold. 3. The AO and the CIT(A) have not appreciated facts that the appellant has received developed site areas of 41,947 sq.ft. in exchange of undeveloped land area of 87120 sq.ft. from the Developer. Hence, the developed cost of site is to be considered u/s 57 as it is attributable to sale of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gricultural land and converted it into non-agricultural land). The above land was developed into sites by a joint development agreement with one M/s.Merusri Real Estate Developers Private Limited. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that she was entitled only to 41,947.19 sq.fts. of developed land in exchange of 87,120 sq.ft. (two acres of land). The assessee further submitted that 26,933.61 sq.ft. sites were sold for a total sales proceeds of Rs.95,09,551. It was submitted that the cost per sq.ft. of the developed land worked out to Rs.172.71 (i.e. Rs.72,23,725 / 41.947.19). Therefore, it was claimed that the cost of 26,933.61 sq.ft. of land sold during the relevant assessment year should be taken as Rs.46,3....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs.82.91 which is Rs.22,33,252.89. Objections, if any, may be filed before 01.11.2019 else this will be taken as your Total cost." The assessee has filed no response for the above from which it is evident that the assessee has no explanations to offer. Therefore, the deduction u/s 57 is reduced to Rs.22,33,252 for A.Y. 17-18." 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) held that the assessee has not discharged the onus to substantiate her claim with the required documents / evidences. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows:- "14. Moreover, the onus was on the appellant to substantiate her claim with required d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssue before the Tribunal. The learned AR has filed a paper book comprising of 136 pages inter alia enclosing therein the acknowledgement of return filed, the computation of income, the agreement with M/s.Merusri Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., approved plant issued by BIAAPA, purchase deed dated 28.12.2010, samples of the copies of the sale deeds concluded during the relevant assessment year, submissions made before the AO and the CIT(A), etc. The learned AR reiterated submissions made before the Income Tax Authorities. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee has not been able to substantiate her claim with documentary proof and agreement entered with the developer. Therefore, it was submitted that the Tribuna....