TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 543
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not considering the cost of construction as per work order to complete the Semi-Finished Residential Flat is erroneous as it is contrary to the facts of the case. 2. Any other ground at the time of hearing" 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee did not file his return of income for the A.Y 2014-15. The assessment has been subsequently reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the reasons recorded as per which income chargeable to tax had been escaped assessment on account of under assessment of capital gain derived from transfer of property. Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.3.2021 was issued and served on the assessee. There is no response from the assessee to the said notice. Subsequently, notices and show-caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is based on a document captioned as "work order regarding agreement of Rs. 19,50,000/-" between the vendor and assessee for certain house construction work, the Assessing Officer observed that the evidences put up by the assessee prima facie does not appears to be genuine. 5. The DRP after taking relevant evidences filed by the assessee and also taking into account the remand report of the Assessing Officer directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the capital gain by adopting the full value of consideration in terms of provisions of section 50C of the Act and also allow indexed cost of acquisition as claimed by the assessee towards consideration paid for purchase of property. However, rejected the indexed cost of improvement as claimed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s spent by the assessee for further construction. Therefore, he submitted that the Assessing Officer may be directed to allow indexed cost of improvement on the basis of work order and agreement entered into with the vendor. 8. The learned CIT (DR) Shri Kumar Pranav, on the other hand supporting the orders of the Assessing Officer and the DRP submitted that except copy of work order and agreement with the vendor, the assessee could not file any other evidences to justify payment of Rs. 19,50,000/- to the vendor for further construction. In absence of necessary evidences, the Assessing Officer and the DRP has rightly rejected the claim of the assessee and therefore, the order should be upheld. 9. We have heard both the parties, perused the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same time, the assessee is also unable to file further evidences to substantiate his case that he has paid a sum of Rs. 19,50,000/- to the vendor for additional construction work in the property. Except the work order, the assessee could not furnish relevant bank statement to prove payment to the builder. Unless the assessee file necessary evidences to substantiate its claim, it is difficult for the Assessing Officer to accept the claim of the assessee only on the basis of the work order. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the matter needs to go back to the file of the Assessing Officer for further verification. Thus, we set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Offic....