2019 (12) TMI 364 - AT - Income Tax

Long Term capital gains on account of sale of land - assessee s claim seeking cost of improvement of the impugned capital asset - HELD THAT - Assessee has not produced even a single expenditure voucher or her oral deposition specifying the nature of such an improvement made to her capital asset. It is in view of this clinching fact only that the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) have rejected her claim to be not even prima facie proved. CIT(A) has further made reference to sec. 55(1)(b) (supra) that cost of improvement means expenditure of capital nature incurred in making in addition(s) or alteration to the asset. We sought to know the details of any such improvement in the capital asset. No material much less a cogent evidence has come from assessee s side except oral submissions. We accept the Revenue s arguments in this peculiar factual backdrop and affirm the CIT(A) s detailed discussion that the Assessing Officer had rightly made the impugned long term capital gains addition after distinguishing the assessee s case law quoted in the lower appellate proceedings (supra). We see no illegality or irregularity in the CIT(A) s action distinguishing the same on facts. The assessee fails in her sole substantive grievance. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness of long term capital gains addition on the sale of land.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata involved the correctness of long term capital gains addition of ?15,43,807 made during the assessment year 2011-12. The main issue was whether capital gains tax should be levied on the sale of land that was originally agricultural but had improved over time due to external factors. The appellant argued that since the land was agricultural when purchased, and the cost of improvement could not be ascertained, capital gains tax should not be applicable. However, it was established that the land was within the municipal limits of an urban area at the time of sale, making it subject to capital gains tax. The appellant's claim that the appreciation in land value was due to external factors was rejected, as such appreciation falls under capital gains taxation. The Tribunal also discussed the definition of cost of improvement and noted that as no direct expenditure was made for improvement, the cost of improvement was rightly considered as nil. Various case laws were cited by the appellant, but the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, dismissing the appeal on this issue.

The authorized representative contended that the assessee should be granted relief for the cost of improvement in the computation of long term capital gains, as the land was originally purchased as agricultural in 1994 and had possibly incurred expenses for improvement over time. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this claim, as the assessee failed to provide any evidence or documentation of such improvements. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) rejected the claim due to lack of proof, and the Tribunal affirmed this decision. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant did not produce any expenditure vouchers or evidence of improvements, leading to the dismissal of the claim. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's arguments and upheld the decision to add the long term capital gains, as the appellant's case lacked substantiated evidence of improvements to the capital asset. The appeal was ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal.