R.Vishnumohan, Coimbatore V. ACIT, Coimbatore

CO 145/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6553 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1474(MDS)/2011 & CO NO.145(MDS)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE III, COIMBATORE. VS. SHRI R.VISHNUMOHAN, 327-C, LINGAPPA STREET, COIMBATORE-641 001. PAN AEPPM9577D. (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR) APPELLANT BY : DR.I.VIJAYAKUM AR, IRS, COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.SRIDHAR, A DVOCATE. DATE OF HEARING : 17 TH NOVEMBER, 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 TH NOVEMBER, 2011 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT A SSESSMENT - - ITA 1474 & CO 145 OF 2011 2 YEAR IS 2008-09. THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTIO N ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME- TAX(APPEALS)-I AT COIMBATORE, DATED 22-6-2011 AND A RISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEA L IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN R ESPECT OF COST OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BUILDING WHILE COMPUTIN G THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX( APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS CONS TITUTING REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE, ADDITION AND RENOVATION TO THE BUILDING, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD HI MSELF ADMITTED THAT HE HAD NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PRO VE THE CLAIM. 3. WE CONSIDERED THE MATTER. THE MAIN ISSUE OF GI VING DEDUCTION FOR THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING FORMING PAR T OF THE - - ITA 1474 & CO 145 OF 2011 3 PROPERTY WAS DECIDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) IN A RIGHTFUL MANNER, AS THE LAND WAS SOLD ALONGWITH THE BUILDING, EVEN THOUGH THE BUYER DEMANDED LAND W ITHOUT THE BUILDING. IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE TERMS OF THE SA LE, THE BUILDING WAS DEMOLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, WHAT WAS SOLD IS NOT LAND ALONE, BUT ALS O THE BUILDING AS WELL. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT DEDUCTION MUST BE GIVEN TO TH E VALUE OF THE BUILDING ALSO. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO EXAMINE THE CASE OF OTHER ITEMS OF DEDUCTION RELATI NG TO THE EXPENDITURE ON IMPROVEMENTS. THIS DIRECTION IS NOT OUT OF PLACE. THEREFORE, WE FIND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS WITHOUT ANY MERIT AND IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 4. AS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED, THE SUPPORTING CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO STANDS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. - - ITA 1474 & CO 145 OF 2011 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON THURSDAY, THE 17 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 17 TH NOVEMBER, 2011. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.