9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e merits of issue raised in appeal, this appeal by the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect. Not allowing the deduction of cost of improvement - The contention of the assessee before CIT(A) was that Municipal Corporation of greater Mumbai has constructed a Nalla Wall on the land of the assessee and had raised a bill of ₹ 46,12,155/- in February, 2002. The assessee instead of making payment of ₹ 46 lacs to the BMC transferred the said liability with interest to the purchaser and the credit for the said amount was given to the purchaser. Thus, the assessee claimed the benefit of indexed cost of improvement for construction of Nalla Wall on the plot of the assessee - CIT(A) has rejected the contention of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m . The assesee has not furnished revised Form 36 intimating his current/ new address. Therefore, the notice sent through email is deemed to be served in accordance with Sec 282(1)(c) read with rule 127 of the IT Rules. Despite serve of notice none appeared to represent the assessee company. It shows that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Under such circumstances, these appeals are taken up for hearing with the assistance of learned Departmental Representative and the material available on record. 3. Brief facts of the case as emanating from the records are; The assessee entered into an agreement for sale of land at Bhandup on 08/12/2008 for sale consideration of ₹ 85 lacs. The registered Deed of conveyance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was handed over to the purchaser at the time of execution of Agreement to sell. To support his contention, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 491 (Bom). The CIT(A) directed the AO to refer valuation to DVO for determining the value of property as on 08.12.2008 for the purpose of computing long term capital gain u/s 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In so far as, the assessee s claim of cost of improvement of the property, the CIT(A) rejected the contentions in the absence of any cogent evidence to support that the assessee had actually paid ₹ 46 lacs towards the cost of improvement. Agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for filing of appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, without adverting to the merits of issue raised in appeal, this appeal by the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect. 7. The assessee in its appeal has assailed the findings of the CIT(A) in not allowing the deduction of cost of improvement of ₹ 46 lacs. The contention of the assessee before CIT(A) was that Municipal Corporation of greater Mumbai has constructed a Nalla Wall on the land of the assesee and had raised a bill of ₹ 46,12,155/- in February, 2002. The assessee instead of making payment of ₹ 46 lacs to the BMC transferred the said liability with interest to the purchaser and the credit for the said amount was given to the purchaser. Thus, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
