9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee could not produce these two persons before the AO despite request made by him in this regard. In view of the fact that the ld. AR has claimed that these two persons can be now made available, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order on this score is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO. We order accordingly and direct him to examine the claim of the assessee in respect of commission paid to these two persons at ₹ 8.00 lakh which is shared by both the assessees in question. Development cost of land claimed by the assessee - AO disallowed 10% of total expenses incurred by the assessee and computed capital gains accordingly - HELD THAT:- It is apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M.K. Verma ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : These two appeals by different but related assessees relate to the common assessment year 2013-14. Since most of the issues raised in these appeals are common, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, Sh. Vijaykumar Premnath Bhatt along with his wife, the other assessee, namely, Ms. Shahi Bala, transferred certain piece of land for a consideration of ₹ 2.12 crore on 18-06-2012. The case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). The assessee had shown long term capital gain of ₹ 50,41,580/- against the sale consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by him in this regard. In view of the fact that the ld. AR has claimed that these two persons can be now made available, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order on this score is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO. We order accordingly and direct him to examine the claim of the assessee in respect of commission paid to these two persons at ₹ 8.00 lakh which is shared by both the assessees in question. 4. The other ground is against the development cost of land claimed by the assessee at ₹ 28,93,620/-. 5. The assessees claimed that they purchased a land in the month of June, 2003 at a total cost of ₹ 4,84,700/-. Thereafter, expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Inspector that the claim of the assessee stood verified and vouched that he carried out development of land by constructing boundary wall, borewells, installation of electrical pump sets etc. When the report of the Inspector was given to the AO fortifying the claim of the assessee, there could have been no reason to disallow 10% of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in this regard. Such an ad hoc addition, in our considered opinion, cannot be sustained. We, therefore, order to delete the addition. 7. The next ground is against the exemption claimed u/s.54F of the Act. 8. The assessee claimed exemption u/s.54F by contending that he incurred expenditure of ₹ 24,36,997/- on the construction of residential house at the rema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,66,000/- was shown towards construction. The AO allowed cost of plot but did not allow exemption u/s.54F in respect of cost of construction by observing that no bills and vouchers etc., except certain self-made vouchers, were produced. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the action of the AO. 12. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is observed that the AO, while rejecting the assessee s claim, has observed that further construction of the house is going on at Amritsar, Punjab. Physical verification of the same is not possible due to paucity of time and distance from Pune . The assessee also could not produce any invoices of the construction material claimed to have been purchased and used in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
