SMT. SUDHA GOYAL, BHARATPUR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARATPUR

ITA 1003/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2113 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKWY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA. NO. 1003/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14 SMT. SUDHA GOYAL W/O SHRI RAJ KUMAR GOYAL DAHI WALI GALI, BYNIAN MOHALLA- 321001 CUKE VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BHARATPUR-321001 LFKK;H YS[KK LA -@THVKBZVKJ LA -@ PAN/GIR NO.: AESPG2990K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA AGARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJ MEHARA (ADDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 01/02/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/02/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-22, ALWAR DATED 03.10.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TOWARDS LAND DEVELOPMENT THE AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,31,638/- WHILE WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF PLOT CLAIM IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. ITA NO. 1003/JP/2017 SMT. SUDHA GOYAL, BYNIAN MOHALLA VS. DCIT, BHARATPUR 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES TOWARDS LAND IMPROVEMENT IN THE FIRM OF SOIL FILLING EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,31,638/- AND NECESSARY EXPLANATION WAS CALLED FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE RELEVANT PLOTS STATING DATE WISE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON IMPROVEMENT OF THE PLOTS SUPPORTED WITH PHOTOCOPIES OF THE RELEVANT VOUCHERS. HOWEVER THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LAND IMPROVEMENT AND EXPENSES FOR HER PLOTS- 55A/41A, 61/48F, 61A & 61B AT JATOLI GHANA AND SHOP NO. 9, 10, 11, 12 AT LUDHAVAI AND HAS SHOWN VARIOUS CASH PAYMENT AND BILLS/VOUCHERS HAVE ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED. HOWEVER, NO ADDRESS AND IDENTITY PROOF OF PERSON RECEIVING PAYMENT HAS BEEN FURNISHED. NO QUANTITATIVE DETAILS REGARDING WORK DONE HAS BEEN FURNISHED. NO OTHER EVIDENCE AS PER REGISTERED DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT SOME VOUCHERS COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPENSES INCURRED AS THESE ARE SELF-MADE. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY HELD BY THE AO THAT THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED JUST TO REDUCE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR LAND IMPROVEMENT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,31,638/- WAS DISALLOWED AND EDITED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION AND HIS FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 1003/JP/2017 SMT. SUDHA GOYAL, BYNIAN MOHALLA VS. DCIT, BHARATPUR 3 4.3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE COPIES OF BILLS/VOUCHERS SUBMITTED DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH AND CARE IS TAKEN TO KEEP THE CASH PAYMENT BELOW RS. 20,000/-. ALTHOUGH THE NAME OF THE RECIPIENT IS GIVEN ON THE SELF MADE VOUCHERS BUT NO COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE RECIPIENT IS GIVEN. THEREFORE, THE AOS CONTENTION ABOUT THE VERACITY OF SUCH VOUCHERS IS TRUE AND REASONABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4,31,638/- IS SUSTAINED AND THE APPELLANTS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN REGARD TO COST OF IMPROVEMENT CLAIMED WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PLOTS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DT. 30.03.2016 FURNISHED THE COPY OF A/C OF THE RELEVANT PLOTS STATING THE DATE-WISE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON IMPROVEMENT OF THE PLOTS SUPPORTED WITH PHOTOCOPIES OF THE RELEVANT VOUCHERS (ENCL. 4 TO 10, 12 TO 14 & 16 TO 18) IN REGARD TO SOIL FILLING INTO THE LAND FOR GETTING THE PLOT AT THE ROAD LEVEL. THE LD. AO ALLEGED THAT:- 1. NO ADDRESS AND INDENTITY PROOF OF PERSON(S) RECEIVING PAYMENT HAS BEEN FURNISHED WHILE AT EACH AND EVERY VOUCHER THE NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS VIZ. NAME OF VILLAGE IS AVAILABLE AS EVIDENT FROM THE PHOTOCOPIES OF VOUCHERS BEING SUBMITTED HEREWITH AS STATE IN PARA 1 ABOVE. ITA NO. 1003/JP/2017 SMT. SUDHA GOYAL, BYNIAN MOHALLA VS. DCIT, BHARATPUR 4 2. NO QUANTITATIVE DETAILS REGARDING WORK DONE HAS BEEN FURNISHED WHILE AT EACH AND EVERY VOUCHER THE NO. OF TROLLIES OF SOIL HAS BEEN MENTIONED WHICH IS THE COMPLETE QUANTITATIVE DETAIL. 3. NO OTHER EVIDENCE AS PER REGISTERED DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. SINCE NO SUCH OTHER EVIDENCE IS POSSIBLE IN THE NATURE OF EXPS. INCURRED, THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS THE LD. AO WAS UNJUSTIFIED DISALLOWING THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS. 4,31,638/- WHICH NEEDS DELETION. THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE WHOLE ADDITION OF RS. 4,31,638/- ALLEGING THAT IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH AND CARE IS TAKEN TO KEEP THE CASH PAYMENT BELOW RS. 20000/-, ALTHOUGH THE NAME OF THE RECIPIENT IS GIVEN ON THE SELF MADE VOUCHERS BUT NO COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE RECIPIENT IS GIVEN. WHILE IN FACT THERE IS NO SINGLE VOUCHER WHEREIN THE COMPLETE ADDRESS SUCH AS THE NAME OF VILLAGE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN. HENCE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THIS ADDITION OF RS. 4,31,638/- WHICH NEEDS DELETION. 5. THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PURSUED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT AND THE VOUCHERS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED TOWARDS CERTAIN SOIL FILLING ACTIVITIES WITH THE HELP OF TRACTOR TROLLEY VEHICLE AND THE PAYMENT HAVE BEEN MADE TO MR AMAR ITA NO. 1003/JP/2017 SMT. SUDHA GOYAL, BYNIAN MOHALLA VS. DCIT, BHARATPUR 5 SINGH AND MR KARAN SINGH IN RESPECT OF 10 PLOTS MEASURING 200 SQ. YARDS APPROXIMATELY. THERE IS NO DESCRIPTION OF THE TRACTOR TROLLEY REGISTRATION NO. AND THE FACT THAT THESE PERSONS ARE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING. THESE SERVICES FURTHER IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORDS IN TERMS OF NATURE OF THE LAND WHEREIN THE SAID SOIL FILLING ACTIVITY HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT AND THE QUANTUM OF SOIL WHICH IS USED FOR THE SAID PURPOSES. 7. IN OUR VIEW, THE MATTER NEED FOR THE EXAMINATION AND HE IS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/02/2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKWY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 05/02/2018 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. SUDHA GOYAL, BYNIAN MOHALLA 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- DCIT, BHARATPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. ITA NO. 1003/JP/2017 SMT. SUDHA GOYAL, BYNIAN MOHALLA VS. DCIT, BHARATPUR 6 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 1003/JP/2017} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR