SARASWATHI VENKATARAMAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

discussed in the Assessment Order. Both are the estimated values, but not on the basis of any actual transaction. In the circumstance, we hold that the average of the estimated guideline value and the fair market value (as valued by the Registered Valuer) appears to be reasonable and justified and both the parties have agreed for such estimation.

Accordingly, we hold that Rs.35/- per sq.ft. is reasonable estimate for valuing the land of 5954 sq.ft. This view also supported by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court order in the case of Shri J. Chelladurai cited supra. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the rate of Rs.35/- per sq.ft as on 01.04.1981 as FMV and re-compute the capital gains. Ground Nos.2 & 3 of the assessee are partly allowed.

7.0 Ground No.4 is related to the additional cost of construction of Rs.2,67,888/- for 576 sq.ft. carried out in the FY 1981-82. The assessee :-6 -: claimed 1/4th of the additional cost of construction. For construction of 576 sq.ft. in 1991-92, the assessee’s share 1/4th being worked out to Rs.66,972/-. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for non-submission of the documentary evidence. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The CIT (Appeals) observed that in the absence of bills and vouchers, it is not possible to accept the entries in the Books of Accounts submitted by the assessee.

8.0 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee appealed before us.

Appearing for the assessee, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee has incurred additional cost of construction of Rs.2,67,888/- for construction of 576 sq.ft. in 1991 and the assessee should be allowed the indexed cost of construction for her 1/4th share from the FY 1991-92. In support of the assessee’s claim, the AR produced the note book containing the details of cost of construction and building plan approvals which were produced before the Assessing Officer and pleaded to allow the additional cost of construction.

9.0 On the other hand, the Ld. DR argued that the Assessing Officer has allowed the cost of construction as per the Valuation Report produced by the assessee in the Assessment Order and hence no further additional

ITA No.1985/Mds/2016 :-7 -: cost of construction required to be allowed. According to the Ld.DR, the additional cost of construction was already considered by the Registered Valuer while valuing the property and allowing the additional cost of construction separately tantamount to double allowance of same expenditure. Therefore, the Ld.DR vehemently opposed the contentions of the representative of the assessee.

10.0 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record.

The assessee has submitted the Valuation Report from Shri P.S.H.Y.

Raju, a Registered Valuer, who has valued the entire super structure of the building at Rs.6,02,135/-. No separate valuation was made by the Registered Valuer from whom the assessee has submitted Valuation Report. Therefore, it was implied that the cost of construction of the building was included in the valuation made by the Valuer. Any further allowance amounts to double deduction of the same amount. The Assessing Officer duly considered the value of the building as per Valuation Report also. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no separate deduction needs to be allowed on account of additional cost of construction relating to 576 sq.ft. claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of the appeal is dismissed. :-8 -: 11.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.