9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated, the assessee sold one immovable property for Rs.9,25,00,000/- during the year under consideration which is stated to be acquired/constructed prior to 01.04.1981. For the purposes of calculation of Long Term Capital Gain, the assessee adopted the cost of acquisition of land and building as per valuation determined by the registered valuer. The assessee inter alia also claimed cost of improvement at Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.2 lac 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 87/-. 5.2 During the course of appellate proceedings appellant has submitted that she has claimed deduction of Rs. 1,80,000/- in 1982 and Rs. 2,00,000/- in 1983 being improvement/construction carried out in the building. The expenditure helped to increased the age of building. The AO did not allow the expenditure in calculation of LTCG for want of documentary proof. In support of her contention appellant has filed an affidavit 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 pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. The assessee has tried to support the claim towards cost of improvement of Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- purportedly incurred in F.Y. 1982 and 1983 respectively by way of affidavit. On inquiry, from the bench, it was however admitted that other than affidavit, the assessee does not possess any other direct or indirect supporting 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
