9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equally plausible that such cost, if any, has been incurred prior to the cut of date and thus already taken into account for the purposes of fair market value of cost of acquisition of the property in question. The affidavit is vague and non-descript. It is not clear from affidavit as to what is the basis for affirming the contents on oath. Needless to say, an affidavit should clearly spell out how much is the statement to the deponents knowledge and how much is a statement of his belief based on information and source thereof. The grounds of belief must be stated with sufficient particularity to enable the court/administrating authority to judge whether it would be safe to act on deponents belief . The affidavit filed by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attributable to F.Y. 1982 and 1983 respectively while computing the Long Term Capital Gains. The indexed cost of such cost of improvement was worked out to Rs.37,65,123/- for deduction. The Assessing Officer on inquiry from the assessee in the course of the assessment found that the aforesaid claim towards cost of improvement is not supported by any documentary evidence. The Assessing Officer accordingly observed that the cost of improvement claimed with a view to reduce tax liabilities. The Assessing Officer thus denied the cost of improvement so claimed for the purposes of determination of taxable Long Term Capital Gains. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) however also could not see any merit in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avit that improvement was carried out by his brother with his own resources in the year 1982 and 1983. Her brother is an NRI and construction was looked after by her. The extensive improvement of the said property was carried out by her brother during period 1982/1983. Such improvement was undertaken to maintain the property after the period of merely 28 years at a cost of Rs. 1,80,000/- in 1981 and Rs. 2,00,000/- in 1982 is quite reasonable. 5.3 I have considered the facts of the case, finding of the AO and submissions of the appellant. The appellant has claimed cost of improvement at Rs. 1,80,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- in the year 1982 and 1983 respectively and indexed cost of improvement for both the year at Rs. 39,29,288/-. The AO h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porting evidence. The only case of the assessee is that the cost of improvement has taken place 35 years back and that too incurred by his brother, and therefore, the assessee is not in a position to corroborate the claim. The assessee mainly relies upon the doctrine of preponderance. 6. On perusal of the affidavit, it is not known as to what kind of improvement has been carried out by the brother of the assessee. No particulars whatsoever is available on record in this regard. While it is the claim of the assessee that the improvement has taken place immediately after the cut of date for adoption of fair market value of cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981, it is equally plausible that such cost, if any, has been incurred prior to the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
