TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 per sq.ft.(i.e. 72,23,725 / 81,120). A.O. also has not granted expenses of Rs.3,41,133, which according to the assessee, is attributable to sale of developed sites. To the proposal issued by the A.O., the assessee did not respond, consequently, the claim of deduction u/s 57 of the I.T.Act was reduced by the A.O. to Rs.22,33,252 instead of Rs.49,79,511 claimed by the assessee. Even before the first appellate authority, the assessee has not been able to prove that it was in respect of only saleable area of 41,947.19 sq.ft. Consequently, the CIT(A) confirmed the views taken by the A.O. Assessee had produced approval plan issued by BIAAPA, wherein it is mentioned that the total saleable area is only 50.68%. It is not clear whether this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment in the matter. A.O. shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before a decision is taken in the matter - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.674/Bang/2022 - - - Dated:- 5-9-2022 - Shri Chandra Poojari, AM And Shri George George K, JM For the Appellant : Sri.C.Ramesh, CA For the Respondent : Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR ORDER PER GEORGE GEORGE K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A);s order 08.06.2022. The relevant assessment year is 2017-2018. 2. The grounds raised read as follows:- The appellant objects to the Assessment order on the followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l had filed the return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018 on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.46,49,450. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the claim of deduction u/s 57 of the I.T.Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had declared Rs.45,30,070 as sales proceeds of land under the head income from other sources . The total sale proceeds received during the relevant assessment year was Rs.95,09,551 (including non-refundable deposit). The assesee had claimed deduction of total expenditure of Rs.49,79,481. It was noticed that the assessee had purchased the above said land in the year 2010 for a total purchase cost of Rs.72,23,275 (purchased two acres of agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was Rs.72,23,725. The assessee then stated that she entered into a Sale Agreement with Merusri. After a perusal of the assessee s submissions, the following discrepancy was noted which was conveyed vide notice dated 29.10.2019, which is as reproduced below: Sub: Income Tax scrutiny proceedings for Asst.Year 2017-18 Calling for information u/s 142(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 Reg. .. 3. The total cost of acquisition of your 2 acres of erstwhile agricultural land is Rs.72,23,725 (as stated by you previously). Therefore, the total cost to you would be Rs.72,23,725 / 87,120 (2 acres is equal to 87.120 sq.ft.) which is equal to Rs.82.91. Therefore, the cost of sites works out to 26,933.61 sq.ft. @ Rs.82.91 which is Rs.22, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The appellant once again could not substantiate her claim regarding the value of developed land taken by the AO. The AO has already acknowledged the reply dated 08.07.2019 filed by the assessee in para 4 of the assessment order. 15. In the facts and circumstances, it is inferred, that the appellant do not possess any valid document or agreement to corroborate his claim. The contention of the appellant seems to be without any reasonable basis. Therefore, in the given situation, there is no need to interfere with the order of the AO. Hence, the addition made by the AO is held justified and Ground of appeal No.1 id dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. The learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also has not granted expenses of Rs.3,41,133, which according to the assessee, is attributable to sale of developed sites. 9. To the proposal issued by the A.O., the assessee did not respond, consequently, the claim of deduction u/s 57 of the I.T.Act was reduced by the A.O. to Rs.22,33,252 instead of Rs.49,79,511 claimed by the assessee. Even before the first appellate authority, the assessee has not been able to prove that it was in respect of only saleable area of 41,947.19 sq.ft. Consequently, the CIT(A) confirmed the views taken by the A.O. Before us, the assessee had produced approval plan issued by BIAAPA, wherein it is mentioned that the total saleable area is only 50.68%. It is not clear whether this approved plan issued by the B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|