9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... himself/herself, which has not been established by the assessee. But the facts remains that there will be incurred certain expenditure to maintain/improve the property and reasonable estimation to be made in the absence of proper bills and vouchers produced by the assessee. Here being any evidence in support of the same is not only unreasonable but also exorbitant and excessive. However, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to be estimated the expenditure at Rs.2,000/- per annum in the year 1982 and 10% increase to be made from year to year up to 2005 to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we direct the Ld. A.O. to consider the amount of Rs. 2,000/- in the year 1982 and increased the same by the 10% in each year up to 2005 and g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide any proof to substantiate it being accrural inherited land. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred by not considering the fact that how land can sustain without incurring any cost of improvement. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 declaring income of Rs. 1,86,38,460/ . The Assessee s case was selected for scrutiny and A.O. completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,43,99,593/- by making an addition of Rs. 57,61,133/- on account of increase in capital gain, wherein the Ld. A.O. has disallowed the indexed cost improvement of Rs. 72,46,735/- for want of evidences regarding constructio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r claimed that expenditure of Rs. 14,97,549/- on 16 bigha land was incurred over 25 years which comes to 59,900/- per annum which is very small in comparison to the size of the land as the nature of the expenses are towards land improvement and leveling, weeding, boundary wall, care taker expenses and expenses to keep the land safe from encroachment. Accordingly, the assessee has provided indexed cost improvement as under:- Land improvement cost. Year starting Improvement (Proportionate Share) Index of respective years Indexed Value 1982 56,410 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 331 173,642 1998 74,115 351 228,257 1999 58,636 389 162,944 2000 88,034 406 234,395 2001 60,892 426 154,516 2002 64,186 447 155,223 2003 66,392 463 155,010 2004 80,392 480 181,049 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uation @ Rs 70 per square yard adopted by the assessee. However, learned CIT(A) was in error to the extent that solatium is required to be treated as a part of the compensation, for income tax purposes, in the light of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's judgment in the case of Vadilal Soda Ice Factory Vs CIT [ (1970 80 ITR 711], and, therefore, as against valuation at Rs 85 per square yard, he should have taken the same as at Rs 110 per square yard as claimed by the assessee. As regards the cost of improvement, there is no dispute about the fact of the levelling having been done but the claim is declined only for want of evidences. In the case of expenses of this nature, i .e on levelling etc, it is not always possible to have third party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
