9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstruction, certain bills towards expenses/purchases, details of payments made to the builder/contractor, etc. We find confirmation of such payments from builder/contractor and the architect are not on record. The paper book submitted before the Tribunal is not certified that the material produced before the Tribunal has been placed before the AO and the DRP. There is no clarity whether the evidences that are produced before the Tribunal has been on the record before the AO and the DRP. Hence, in the interest of justice and equity we are of the view that the matter needs fresh examination by the AO. Accordingly the issues raised in this appeal are restored to the file of the AO. AO is directed to adopt the actual cost of construction in respect of the villa. The assessee shall provide necessary proof such as confirmation from the builder/architect with regard to the payments received from the assessee, the invoice incurred on cost of construction, etc. In the event the assessee is not able to prove the actual cost of construction AO shall be at liberty to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer to determine the cost of construction of the villa (to rebut the valuation repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstruction. Further, the Fair market value as adopted by the learned assessing officer is the value realizable at a particular time. It does not reflect the cost of construction but the same is depreciated value as the construction cost incurred is much before and hence the value as adopted by the appellant being correct and the same needs to be accepted. 2.4 The District Valuation Officer has erred in not giving the proper opportunity for submission of the documents required which had a lengthy points and the appellant's absence in India and due to her age factor, which hindered her travel to India and thereby the reasonable opportunity was not given and the principles of natural justice has been violated and there by the assessment order passed based on the Fair market value is to be rejected and the value as per Registered valuer's report it to be accepted. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, is a non-resident. For AY 2018-19 return of income was filed on 20.06.2018 declaring total income at Rs.2,64,24,257/-. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.09.2019. During the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21,43,700 Total 65,17,732 6. The AO thus worked out the long term capital gain (LTCG) at Rs. 4,19,14,268/- instead of Rs.3,13,88,480/- disclosed in the return of income. The computation of LTCG by the AO is detailed below: - Full value of consideration received 5,70,00,000 Less; Indexed cost of acquisition for land (as per assessee s calculation 85,68,000 Less: Indexed cost of improvement / construction 65,17,732 Long term capital gains 4,19,14,268 Less: deduction u/s. 54EC of Act 50,00,000 Less: declared by the assessee in the return of income 2,63,88,480 Addition proposed 1,05,25,788 7. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide its d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar (constructed area of 3735 sq.ft and land measuring 4205 sq.ft.). The solitary dispute in this appeal is whether the AO is justified in adopting the fair market value (FMV) instead of actual cost of construction claimed by the assessee regarding cost of construction of villa. The Assessing Officer, while framing the impugned assessment order substituted the cost improvement by adopting guidance value of the property during the period of construction at Rs.47,92,450/- (before indexation) as against Rs.1,25,32,000/- (before indexation) claimed by the assessee in the return of income. The AO in the assessment order at page 3, while mentioning the about the cost of improvement/construction had stated that the assessee had only furnished valuation report and no supporting evidences and hence restricted the claim of cost of construction to the extent of guidance value. However, the assessee before the Tribunal contended that the assessee had submitted before the AO the relevant details such as bank statements, bills pertaining to construction and inward remittance supporting the construction cost, etc. The assessee has furnished the same in the paper book submitted before the Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
