Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.6 With respect to building, the assessee claimed to have spent an amount of Rs.35 Lacs towards cost of construction in the year 1983-84 and worked out indexed cost of Rs.326.16 Lacs. The above cost was claimed towards 20000 sq. feets of building. However, the said claim could not be substantiated by any documentary evidences. It could also not be established that the construction took place during the year 1983-

84. The assessee only produced copy of demolition plan as an evidence for existence of building and online status of property tax payments details from the year 1993-94. The said claim was held by Ld. AO to be on vague estimation and therefore, this claim could not be allowed to the assessee.

2.7 The Ld. AO noted that having regards to material on record, it could be seen that there existed a building at the time of demolition. The perusal of demolition plan would show that the extent of building at the time of demolition was only 18593 square feets and not 20000 square feets as claimed by the assessee. The property was originally owned by his mother on 28-05-1958 and subsequently constructed thereon. The property vested with official assignee and the assessee acquired the said property from High Court on 27-08-1966. The construction of the building could have taken place from the years 1958 to 1965 since none of the subsequent documents of conveyance make any mention about construction made by the assessee. It could be seen from the deed of original acquisition by the assessee dt. 27.08.1966 that the property consisted of 15 grounds and 558 Square feets including the Bungalows, out-house, cattle shed, garage and garden. But there was no mention about the extent of building in the said deed. Therefore, it was to be concluded that the building of 18593 square feet existed since the date of acquisition by the assessee.

11. Coming to the merits of the case, so far as the computation of cost of land is concerned, we find that the assessee has parted with only a part of the land. Therefore, he is not correct in considering entire cost of land while computing the gains. Only proportionate cost could be allowed to the assessee. We confirm the stand of Ld.AO to that extent.

12. So far as the cost of building is concerned, it could be seen that the assessee has claimed to have spent an amount of Rs.35 Lacs towards cost of construction in the year 1983-84 and worked out indexed cost of Rs.326.16 Lacs. The above cost has been claimed towards 20000 sq. feets of building. However, the said claim has remained unsubstantiated. The assessee has only produced copy of demolition plan as evidence for existence of building and online status of property tax payments details from the year 1993-94 without any documentary evidences supporting the expenditure. The said claim has rightly been held to be on vague estimation. The Ld. AO, upon perusal of documents, further noted that there existed a building at the time of demolition. The perusal of demolition plan would show that the extent of building at the time of demolition was only 18593 square feets and not 20000 square feets as claimed by the assessee. The property was originally owned by assessee's mother on 28-05-1958 and subsequently constructed thereon. The property vested with official assignee and the assessee acquired the said property from High Court on 27-08-1966. The construction of the building could have taken place from the years 1958 to 1965 since none of the subsequent documents of conveyance make any mention about construction made by the assessee. It has further been noted by Ld. AO that originally the property consisted of 15 grounds and 558 Square feets including the Bungalows, out-house, cattle shed, garage and garden. But there was no mention about the extent of building in the said deed. Therefore, it was to be concluded that the building of 18593 square feet existed since the date of acquisition by the assessee. Considering the same, Ld. AO has computed Fair Market Value (FMV) of the building as on 01-04-1981 by applying PWD rates and arrived at cost of building as Rs.16.67 Lacs. Considering the plea of the assessee that building was made of superior construction, Ld. AO adopted cost of building as on 01-04-1981 to be Rs.20 Lacs. Since the building was 16 years old as on 01-04-1981, taking the life of building to be 80 years and salvage value of 10%, Ld. AO depreciated the cost and revised the cost of building as on 01-04-1981 to Rs.16.40 Lacs. We substantially concur with all these findings of Ld. AO except for the fact that when FMV of the building has been considered as on 01-04-1981, there is no further requirement to depreciate the same. Therefore, we direct Ld. AO to adopt FMV of the building as on 01-04-1981 as Rs.20 Lacs and re-compute the gains.