9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee’s claim of the payment for brokerage. Coming the claim of improvements and development cost on the land when the Assessing Officer asked for evidence, nothing was placed on record, indicating that this could be an afterthought, once the assessee came to know that he has to offer higher capital gains because the assessee has taken sale consideration at a lesser amount in the original return. Even though there are certain claims made in the original computation itself, since they are not supported by any evidence, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the same. When these were pointed out to the learned counsel, in the course of arguments, he has submitted that the Assessing Officer could have dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer and the CIT(A), we are not inclined to disturb their findings. We accordingly uphold their orders and reject the grounds of the assessee on this issue.- Decided against assessee - ITA No.1466/Hyd/2014 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2016 - SHRI D.MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant by : Shri S.Rama Rao For The Respondent by : Shri M.Sitaram ORDER Per D.Manmohan, Vice President : This appeal is filed at the instance of the assessee and it is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals) IV, Hyderabad dated 13.6.2014, on the issue of computation of capital gains and treatment of agricultural income. 2. Assessee has raised as many as ten gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an amount of ₹ 83,21,038. 4. Another issue which was also considered by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is regarding the agricultural income declared at ₹ 10,56,000. The Assessing Officer asked for evidence for agricultural land holdings and also agricultural receipts and expenditure thereon. Assessee did not furnish any evidence and the Assessing Officer, after discussion with the Authorised Representative, who accepted the agricultural income at ₹ 8 lakhs, disallowed additional amount of ₹ 2,36,000 (wrongly taken at that amount), which was also accepted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. 5. However, assessee contested both the issues before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no prayer for admission of additional evidence. As seen from the documents placed on record also, these are not authenticated documents and there is no supporting evidence to treat these documents as authenticated ones. Even though there are certain signatures on the documents, they cannot be considered as evidence for the following reasons. (a) Identity of the persons who received is not established; (b) Payment of cash towards brokerage is not supported by relevant withdrawals or sources for the amounts, even though they are been stated to have been paid before the sale of the property. (c) Receipts also do not contain any revenue stamp, even though the amount of payment is more than ₹ 50,000. In view of that, the bro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical works are also included in the estimation to the extent of ₹ 8,000. In addition to the above amount of ₹ 5,20,000, assessee also placed in the paperbook from page nos.18 to 22 another quotation dated 5.6.1997 towards plastering, flooring, doors, windows electrical works, plumbing and drainage works, compound wall, painting including gate and fixing in the second quotation. We are not sure how many houses assessee has constructed on the said land and how many times he has constructed, because both the quotations involve the same work at different times and the assessee claims to have incurred expenditure, as per those papers. If so much amount is incurred, sources for the amounts should have been mentioned in evidence of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee. Assessing Officer specifically asked for the evidence of the same, which were not furnished to the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment. It is also on record that the Authorised Representative has agreed for the disallowance, by restriction of agricultural income to an amount of ₹ 8 lakhs, which, in our view, is fair and reasonable. As stated above, the assessee has furnished certain evidence of transfer of money from Tuni and Vizag to the assessee, but it does not establish that these amounts are indicative of the agricultural operations by the assessee to that extent. Moreover, the learned CIT(A) finds that the Authorised Representative submitted that the agricultural land has been leased out to various par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
