Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Jagaron V. Addl. CIT, Moga

ITA 741/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 74121514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Salary income; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 54F; 142(1)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT & MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 741/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SH. RAMESH KUMAR, VS. THE ADDL. CIT, M/S RAMESH MEDICAL HALL, RANGE MOGA JAGRAON PAN NO. ACJPK7197B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. N.K. SAINI RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K.MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 28.09.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.10.2015 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- II, LUDHIANA DATED 23.05.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008-09. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND S:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 55,94, 009/- MADE BY LD ASSESSING OFFICER ON MERE BASIS OF SUSPICION, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF 2 INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT DOUBTING AND IGNORING T HE COPIES OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION: A. ON STATED NON AVAILABILITY OF ORIGINALS THEREOF, WITHOUT SUBJECTING GIVEN COPIES TO POSSI BLE CROSS VERIFICATION AND B. WITHOUT ASKING DURING APPEAL PROCEEDING THE ASSESSE E TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL CHALLANS AS ISSUED B Y MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LUDHIANA 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETIN G SECTION 48 AND TERM 'COST OF IMPROVEMENT' TO SUIT HIS PREMEDIT ATED AND PREORDAINED CONCLUSION. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, LEARNED CIT A ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT ON MERE SELF ASSUMED PO SSIBILITY OF TAXING THE ACCEPTED CAPITAL GAINS UNDER BUSINESS HE AD BEING NON ALLIUNDE TO MAIN ISSUE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT S AME IS NEVER THE CASE OF LD AO. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM SALARY, RENTAL, LONG TERM CAPIT AL GAINS, INTEREST ETC. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.03.2009 D ECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,07,25,647/-. THE SAID RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 1 43(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') ON 17.3.2010. LATER ON, CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ON THE BASIS OF CASS AS PER THE INSTRUCTIONS / GUID ELINES OF CBDT AND STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) / 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD TWO PLOTS MEASURING 172 SQUARE YARDS AND 173.31 SQUARE YARDS SITUATED IN AMERSON ROAD, CIVIL LINE, LUDHIANA FOR RS. 1,41,04,000/- AND 1,42 ,11,420/- RESPECTIVELY TOTALING TO RS. 2,83,15,420/- TO M/S GANPATI EMPIRE & ESTATE (P) LTD, 38-B, 3 MODEL TOWN, PHAGWARA THOUGH SHRI TARSEM LAL BATRA, DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. THE AFORESAID PLOTS WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE SALE DEED NO. 1225 DATED 20.4.1992 AND SALE DEED NO. 5979 DATED 22.6.1 992 FOR RS. 1,65,0000/- EACH. FURTHER, A SUM OF RS. 41,250/- (RS. 20625/- O N EACH PLOT) WAS SPENT ON PURCHASE OF STAMP PAPERS AND RS. 41,775/- WERE SPE NT ON ACCOUNT OF REGISTRATION CHARGES AND BROKERAGE (PAID). THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF C OST OF ACQUISITION CAME TO RS. 4,16,024/- AND ITS INDEX COST CAME TO RS. 10,27 ,934./- WHICH WAS DULY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED COST OF IMPROVEMENT AT RS. 55,94,0 09/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE REGARDING THE EXPENSES CLAIMED ON THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID CLAIM. HOW EVER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A REPLY DATED 13.12.2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFT ER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT NO EVIDENCE REGARDING EXPENSES INCURRED ON CONSTRUCTION OF THE MALL AND A PPROVAL OF MAP FROM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LUDHIANA WERE FURNISHED. CO NSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE CL AIMED THAT HE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 22,64,000/-- ON DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION ON TWO PLOTS IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1992-93 AND HAD CLAIMED INDEX CO ST OF CONSTRUCTION / IMPROVEMENT AT RS. 55,94,009/- WHILE CALCULATING LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM GALL BLADDE R ENLARGEMENT AND WAS OPERATED IN NOVEMBER 2011. AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COPIES OF THE TWO NOTICES ISSUED BY MUNICIPAL CORPO RATION, LUDHIANA IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT ON THE AFORESAID PROPER TIES IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 4 1992-93. THE CIT(A) ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E AFTER OBTAINING THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCERNED. THE CO NTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT HE STARTED CONSTRUCTION IMMEDIATELY AFTER FINALIZING THE SITE PLAN. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECE IVE AN APPROVAL FROM THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA AND OFFICIALS OF TH E SAID CORPORATION OBJECTED TO THE CONSTRUCTION AT THE SITE AS THE ASSESSEE HA D ALREADY CONSTRUCTED UP TO FIRST FLOOR AND SPENT RS. 24,64,000/- APPROX. THE CONSTRU CTION WAS STOPPED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LUDHIANA. IN THE MEANTIME, THERE WAS FAMILY DISPUTE ALSO AND THE MATTER WAS NOT PURSUED WITH THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. AS REGARDS THE EVIDENCE OF EXPENDITURE ON CONSTRUCTION, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE CANNOT PRODUCE RECORDS O F CONSTRUCTION IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1992-93 FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. AS REGARDS THE C ONSTRUCTION EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO TICE ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LUDHIANA IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE INC URRENCE OF THE EXPENDITURE FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- I) WHETHER ON THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, T HE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT IT HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.22,64,000/- ON CONSTRUCTION ON THE AFORESAID PLO TS IS ACCEPTABLE? THE APPELLANT HAS MERELY CLAIMED THAT IT HAD INCURR ED COST OF RS.22,64,000/- ON DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION O F TWO PLOTS IN F/Y 1992-93. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITT ED ANY EVIDENCE, WHATSOEVER, REGARDING THE ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED AS CLAIMED ABOVE. NO DETAILS OR VOUCHERS W ERE PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S OR DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE APP ELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO SITE PLAN WAS GOT APPROV ED FROM THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA FOR CARRYING OU T THE AFORESAID CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY EVIDENCE WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING S ARE 5 COPIES OF TWO SHOW CAUSE NOTICES FROM THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REGARDING SOME UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCITO N BEING CARRIED OUT. THIS IS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUB MITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS, THESE EVIDENCES WERE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E UNDER RULE 46A CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THE CONTEN TS OF DOCUMENTS AND AFTER SEEKING THE COMMENTS THE AO. TH E APPELLANT HAD FILED ONLY PHOTOCOPIES OF THESE DOCUM ENTS DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT WAS REQUESTED TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL OF BOTH THESE DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, IN SPIT E OF SPECIFIC REQUEST ORIGINALS OF THESE DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ORIGINAL DO CUMENTS, THE PHOTOCOPIES FILED BY THE APPELLANT, THOUGH OTHE RWISE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, COULD NOT BE RELIE D UPON. IT IS SETTLED POSITION THAT PHOTOCOPIES OF DOCUMENT S CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS EVIDENCE UNLESS THESE ARE CONFIRM ED ON THE BASIS OF VERIFICATION OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. RE FERENCE IN THIS REGARD MAY BE MADE TO THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY A BENCH OF THREE JUDGES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MOOSA S. MADHA & AZAM S. MADHA VS. CIT, 89 ITR 65 (SC) ACCORDING TO WHICH PHOTOCOPIES HAVE VERY LI TTLE EVIDENTIARY VALUE. THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO EXAMINED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF SIMRA NPAL SINGH GILL VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-VI, LUDHIANA IN ITA NO. L19/CHANDI/2010 FOR A/Y 2008-09. IN THIS ORDER DATE D 29 LH APRIL, 2011, THE HON'BLE ITAT OBSERVED US UNDER:- 'IN THE ABSENCE OF ORIGINAL, A PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE UNDER THE LA W OF EVIDENCE. WE ARE AWARE THAT THE TAXING AUTHORITI ES ARE NOT BOUND BY THE TECHNICAL RULES OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT. THE INCOME TAX ACT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT PREVENT THEM FROM APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF THE EVIDENCE ACT IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THEM. IN CHUHARMAL VS. C1T, 172 ITR 250 (SC), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE TAXING AUTHORITIES ARE NOT PREVENTED FROM INVOKING THE PRINCIPLES OF THE EVIDENCE ACT IF THEY ARE DESIROUS OF INVOKING THEM. IT IS A WELL- SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW OF EVIDENCE THAT COPY OF A 6 DOCUMENT SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF ORIGINAL. ' THEREFORE, PHOTOCOPIES OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES FR OM THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA REGARDING UNAUTHORI ZED CONSTRUCTION ARE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR D ECIDING THIS ISSUE. AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAS N OT BEEN ABLE TO ADDUCE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT IT HAD CARRIED OUT CONSTRUCTION/DEV ELOPMENT ON THE PLOTS UNDER REFERENCE. KEEPING IN THE VIEW THE AFORESAID FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION IT IS MY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT IT HAD CARRIED OUT CONSTRU CTION AS CLAIMED. AS SUCH, ON THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES, THE APPELLANT CLAIM THAT IT HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.22,64,0007- ON CONSTRUCTION ON THE AFORESAID PLO TS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. WHETHER IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, DEDUC TION OUT OF CAPITAL OF THIS LAND ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION / IMPROVEMENT IS LEGALLY ALLOWABLE? WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE DISCUSSION IN PARA (I) ABO VE IT MAY ALSO BE RELEVANT TO DISCUSS THAT IF THE APPELLANT H AD ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT THE AFORESAID CONSTRUCTION AS CLAIMED BY HIM, AND THEN DEMOLISHED IT HIMSELF, WHETHER, TH E SAME WAS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION OUT OF CAPITAL GAINS. IN THIS REGARD, IT MAY BE RELEVANT TO REFER TO THE PROVISIO NS OF S.48 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SECTION 48 READS AS UNDER;- '48. THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD ''CAPITAL GAINS ' SHALL BE COMPUTED, BY DEDUCTING FROM THE FULL VAL UE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF T HE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS , NAMELY- (I) EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVEL Y IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER; 7 (II) THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET AND T HE COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT THERETO ' THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE CONSTRUCTION AS CLA IMED BY THE APPELLANT IS DEFINITELY NOT THE COST OF ACQUISI TION. COULD IT BE TAKEN AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT? THIS WOULD DEPE ND UPON THE FACT WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION ADDED TO THE VALUE OF LAND. IN THE INSTANT CASE IT DID NOT ADD TO THE VALUE OF LAND IN ANYWAY. AS PER THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION T HE CONSTRUCTION DONE BY HIM WAS COMPLETELY REMOVED BEF ORE THE LAND WAS SOLD. THUS IT CANNOT BE TAKEN TO BE CO ST OF IMPROVEMENT. MOREOVER, THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT ON THIS I SSUE AS REFERRED TO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS AS UNDER:- THIS IS TO STATE THAT THE PROPERTY AT MALL ROAD, LUDHIANA WAS PURCHASED WITH THE INTENTION TO BUILD A SHOPPING MALL IN THE YEAR 1992. THE PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY 5 PERSONS IN ALL WITH PROPER SHARES DETERMINED AND DIFFERENT TITLE DEEDS. IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELL ANT THAT IT HAD STARTED CONSTRUCTION OF A SHOPPING MALL ON THE AFORESAID PLOT IS CORRECT THEN THE ACTIVITY OF SUCH CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE CONSTRUED TO BE ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. THE PROFITS ARISING OUT OF SUCH AN ACTIVITY AND ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SUCH VENTURE OR ANY LOSS INCURRED OUT OF THIS,: ACTIVITY WOULD BE TAXABLE ON LY UNDER THE HEAD 'BUSINESS INCOME/LOSS'. AND IN SUCH A CASE NO DEDUCTION U/S 54F WOULD BE ALLOWABLE. THUS, IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTI ON / IMPROVEMENT IS LEGALLY NOT ALLOWABLE OUT OF CAPITAL GAINS FROM SALE OF THIS LAND. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FACTUAL AND LEGAL POS ITION AO WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DED UCTION ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.55,94,009/-. 8 THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALS O PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED COST OF IMPROVEMENT SPENT AT RS. 55,94,009/- IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARD ING THE EXPENSES CLAIMED ON THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT. THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS REPL Y DATED 13.12.2010, SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- THIS IS TO STATE THAT THE PROPERTY AT MALL ROAD, L UDHIANA WAS PURCHASED WITH THE INTENTION TO BUILD AND SHOPP ING MALL IN THE YEAR 1992. THE PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY 5 PERSONS IN ALL WITH PROPER SHARES DETERMINED AND DI FFERENT TITLE DEEDS. WE SPENT APPX. 5 LACS (FIVE LACS) ON FILLING UP THE TWO PLOTS WITH EARTH AND LEVELING AND SETTING THEN. FURTHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MALL STARTED IN THE YEAR OF PUR CHASE ITSELF I.E. 1992 BUT DUE TO SOME DISPUTE BETWEEN OW NERS REGARDING THE SHARING OF CONSTRUCTED MALL, THE CONS TRUCTION COULD NOT BE COMPLETED. THEREAFTER THE OWNERS DECID ED TO SELL THE SEMI FINISHED STRUCTURE, BUT FOR THAT NO B UYER WAS AVAILABLE. THE BUYERS INSISTED FOR VACANT POSSESSIO N OF THE PLOT. TO SELL THIS PROPERTY, WE AIL DECIDED TO RAGE DOWN THE SEMI FINISHED STRUCTURE. THEN THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD SEPARATELY ACCORDING TO RESPECTIVE SHARES BY THE \ OWNERS OUT OF WHICH WE HAD TWO TITLE DEEDS. THIS IS THE REASON WHY THE TITLE DEED FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND SALE OF PROPERTY FALLS OF SIMPLE DWELLING UNIT.' 5. IN OUR VIEW, THE ABOVE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE GOE S TO THE ROUTE OF THE MATTER. IN THE ABOVE REPLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGO RICALLY STATED THAT DUE TO SOME 9 DISPUTE BETWEEN THE OWNERS REGARDING THE SHARE ON C ONSTRUCTION OF MALL, THE CONSTRUCTION COULD NOT BE COMPLETED. IT IS ALSO STA TED THAT THEREAFTER, THE OWNERS DECIDED TO SELL THE SEMI-FURNISHED CONSTRUCTION BU T FOR THAT NO BUYER WAS AVAILABLE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATED IN THE AFORESAI D REPLY THAT THE BUYERS INSISTED FOR VACANT POSSESSION OF THE PLOT. THE ASSESSEE FUR THER STATED IN THE SAID REPLY THAT TO SELL THESE PROPERTIES, THEY HAD DECIDED TO RAGE DOWN THE SEMI FURNISHED CONSTRUCTION. THEREAFTER THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD SEPA RATELY ACCORDING TO THE RESPECTIVE SHARES BY THE OWNERS OUT OF WHICH THEY H AVE TWO TITLE DEEDS. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE PLEA THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WAS REMOVED IN ORDER TO SELL LAND. ON THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING COST OF IMPROVEMENT. FOR THE ARGUMENT SAKE, THE ASSESSEE H AD MADE ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PLOTS AND SUBSEQUENTLY SAME WAS REMOVED IN O RDER TO SELL THE PLOT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM ANY COST OF IMPROVEMENT BECAU SE NO IMPROVEMENT IS IN EXISTENCE. IN OTHER WORDS, IT DID NOT ADD TO THE VA LUE OF THE LAND ANYWAY. THE CONSTRUCTION DONE IF ANY, BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY REMOVED BEFORE THE LAND WAS SOLD. THUS, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF CL AIMING ANY COST OF IMPROVEMENT. FURTHERMORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER REGARDING THE ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED AS CLAIMED BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE F AILED TO PRODUCE ANY DETAILS OR VOUCHERS REGARDING THE EXPENSES INCURRED AT ANY STAGE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE PLOTS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SITUATED WI THIN THE LIMITS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCE D ANY SITE PLAN APPROVED FROM THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA FOR CARRYI NG OUT THE CONSECUTION, IF ANY BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD S THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED TWO PHOTOCOPIES OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICES ISSU ED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA REGARDING SOME UNAUTHORIZED C ONSTRUCTION BEING CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS COPIES WERE SUBMITTED BEF ORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY OBSERVED THAT IT IS WELL SETTLED PRIN CIPLE OF LAW OF EVIDENCE THAT COPY OF A DOCUMENT SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED IN EVIDEN CE IN THE ABSENCE OF 10 ORIGINAL. THERE IS NO ANY OTHER EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED OUT ANY CONSTRUCTION / DEVELOPMENT ON THE PLOTS SOLD ON 4.3.2008. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOL D THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.10.2015 SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 26 TH OCTOBER, 2015 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR