AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is a delay of four days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and also an affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. On perusal of the reasons stated in the affidavit we find that the delay in filing the appeal cannot be attributed to any latches on the part of the assessee and there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay of four days and proceed to dispose of the case on merits. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: - "1. The learned Assessing Officer had erred in passing the order as passed by him and the Directions given by the Dispute resolution Panel -2, Bangalore (DRP in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the documents required which had a lengthy points and the appellant's absence in India and due to her age factor, which hindered her travel to India and thereby the reasonable opportunity was not given and the principles of natural justice has been violated and there by the assessment order passed based on the Fair market value is to be rejected and the value as per Registered valuer's report it to be accepted." 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, is a non-resident. For AY 2018-19 return of income was filed on 20.06.2018 declaring total income at Rs.2,64,24,257/-. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.09.2019. During the course ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... guidance value rate (construction of villa between AY 2009-10 and AY 2012-13) at Rs.65,17,732/-. The details of cost of improvement and the indexed cost of improvement worked out by the AO are as follows: - Property No. Area of improvement in sq.ft. Cost per sq.ft. Estimated cost of improvement Indexed cost of improvement Villa No. 117-Ground Floor 2474 1300 32,16,200 43,74,032 Villa No. 117- First Floor 1261 1250 15,76,250 21,43,700 Total 65,17,732 6. The AO thus worked out the long term capital gain (LTCG) at Rs. 4,19,14,268/- instead of Rs.3,13,88,480/- disclosed in the return of income. The computation of LTCG by the AO is detailed below: - Full value of consideration received ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds expenses, valuation report supporting the cost of construction incurred by the assessee, photographs of the property in the year 2012, sale deed, purchase deed, etc. The learned A.R. submitted that the assessee has incurred a total cost of Rs.1,25,32,000/- for construction of the villa from the year 2009 to 2012. It was submitted that the cost incurred are born out from the invoices produced and the same is placed on record with regard to the details of payments made to the material supplier, builder/contractor, labour charges, etc. Therefore it was submitted that the cost incurred by the assessee at Rs.1,25,322,000/- may be taken as cost of acquisition of the villa and accordingly the long term capital gains may be computed. 9. The l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... evidences and hence restricted the claim of cost of construction to the extent of guidance value. However, the assessee before the Tribunal contended that the assessee had submitted before the AO the relevant details such as bank statements, bills pertaining to construction and inward remittance supporting the construction cost, etc. The assessee has furnished the same in the paper book submitted before the Tribunal. The statement showing the cost of construction/ improvement of property and the relevant proof submitted during the course of hearing are detailed below: - a. Statement of cost of construction b. Bills towards the expenses/purchases Copies c. The statement showing the payments made with cheque number....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind the assessee has filed before us the statement of cost of construction, certain bills towards expenses/purchases, details of payments made to the builder/contractor, etc. However, we find confirmation of such payments from builder/contractor and the architect are not on record. The paper book submitted before the Tribunal is not certified that the material produced before the Tribunal has been placed before the AO and the DRP. Therefore, there is no clarity whether the evidences that are produced before the Tribunal has been on the record before the AO and the DRP. Hence, in the interest of justice and equity we are of the view that the matter needs fresh examination by the AO. Accordingly the issues raised in this appeal are restored t....