ITO, Ward 2(3), Pune, Pune V. Shri Arun Madanlal Seth, Pune

ITA 1139/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84935 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S NAIK
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE: SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 1139 / P N/ 20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 09 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), P UNE, P.M.T. BUILDING, SWARGATE, PUNE VS. SHRI ARUN MADANLAL SETH, 66, HINDUSTAN ESTATE, LANE NO. 2B, KALYANI NAGAR, PUNE (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. ADRPS0200J ITA NO . 1140 /PN/20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), PUNE, P.M.T. BUILDING, SWARGATE, PUNE VS. SMT. KUSUM ARUN SETH, 66, HINDUSTAN ESTATE, LANE NO. 2B, KALYANI NAGAR, PUNE (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. ACEPS2156F APPELLANT BY: SHRI P.S. NAIK RESPONDENT BY: SHRI B.B. MANE DATE OF HEA RING : 26 - 08 - 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 - 08 - 2014 ORDER PER R.S . PADVEKAR , JM : - THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF TWO DI FFERENT ASSESSEE S FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09 , CHALLENGING THE RESPECTIVE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) - II, PUNE DATED 1 1 - 01 - 2013 . 2. WE FIRST TAKE THE APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 1139/PN/2013. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND COST OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2 ITA NO S. 1139 & 1140 /PN/2013, SHRI ARUN MADANLAL SETH, PUNE TWO LANDS ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REBUT SUCH EVIDENCE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING SUCH CLAIM FOR BOTH THE LANDS RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR PISOLI LAND ONLY. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING SUCH CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE SELF M ADE VOUCHERS BELOW RS.20,000/ - EACH SIGNED BY A PERSON ALREADY EXPIRED AND REJECTING THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR WHO VISITED THE IMPUGNED PREMISES TO REPORT THAT IT WAS ONLY BARE VACANT LAND. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOW ING SUCH CLAIM WITHOUT PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH COST OF IMPROVEMENT/DEVELOPMENT WAS INCURRED. 3 . THE FACTS WHICH ARE REVEALED FORM THE RECORD AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM BUSINES S OF COMMISSION FROM REAL ESTATE AGENCIES, BROKERAGE AND ALSO INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,45,523/ - AND THE SAME WAS ASSESSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.31,23,990/ - . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF LAND AT 'NIL' AFTER CLAIMING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AND INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES OF RS.20 LACS IN RESPECT OF LAND AT PISOLI AND RS.10 LACS IN RESPECT OF LAND AT UNDRI, JOINTLY WITH HER HUSBAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS CLAIM OF INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT/DEVELOPMENT AND THE DETAILS FURNIS HED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO GOT IT VERIFIED BY DEPUTING HIS INSPECTOR WHO REPORTED THAT THE PERSON WHO HAD SIGNED THE VOUCHERS OF LABOUR PAYMENT HAD DIED AND ALSO THAT LAND WAS 3 ITA NO S. 1139 & 1140 /PN/2013, SHRI ARUN MADANLAL SETH, PUNE OPEN AND VACANT WITH NO CONSTRUCTION THE REON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS HELD THE CLAIM OF INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT TO BE NOT GENUINE AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.27,13,364/ - WHILE MAKING THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THIS DISALLOWANCE I S THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL. 4 . IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE THE CORE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS THE CLAIM OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.27,13,364/ - WAS DECLINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE MAY MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CO - OWNER OF THE LAN D AND HAVING THE 50% OF THE SHARES IN SAID PROPERTY . THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 HAS CONTESTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.27,78,468/ - TOWARDS COST OF IMP ROVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT ON THE GROUND THAT NO DEVELOPMENT/IMPROVEMENT OF WORK WAS FOUND ON THE LANDS OF PISOLI AND UNDRI. 3.3 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE LAND AT PISOLI WAS PURCHASED FOR RS.2,25,000/ - ON 30 - 11 - 1995 AND SOLD FOR RS.90 LACS ON 9 - 5 - 2007 AND THAT LAND AT UNDRI WAS PURCHASED ON 3.4.1996 FOR RS.61,272/ - AND SOLD FOR RS.24.80 LACS ON 8 - 8 - 2007 AND BOTH THE LANDS WERE JOINTLY HELD ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND FOR ABOUT 11 TO 12 YEARS DURING WHICH THE IMPROVEMENT WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE SAID LAND. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO CONSTRUCTION WAS DONE ON THE LAND AS THE LABOR PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO MR. RAMDAS KAD FOR THE IMPROVEMENT CARRIED OUT ON BOTH THE LANDS AT PISOLI AND UNDRI, WHICH QUALI FIES FOR DEDUCTION FROM THE VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER U/S 48 (II) OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LABOUR WORK WAS CARRIED AT BOTH THE LANDS AND THE SAME WAS NOT LIKE THE DEVELOPMENT WORK UNDERTAKEN 4 ITA NO S. 1139 & 1140 /PN/2013, SHRI ARUN MADANLAL SETH, PUNE BY A DEVELOPER OR BUILDER. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE INSPECTOR WAS DIRECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 14 - 12 - 2010, BUT THE REPORT IS DATED 14 - 11 - 2010 AND THAT THE REPORT CANNOT PRECEDE THE INSPECTION. FURTHER IT HAS BEEN ADDED THAT MR. RAMDAS K AD, THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LABOUR WORK EXPIRED ON 6 - 7 - 2004 AND THE INSPECTOR STATES THAT THE WORK DONE BY HIM WAS ONLY LABOUR WORK AND NO CONSTRUCTION WAS FOUND ON THE LAND. THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT EVERY LABOR WORK WOULD NOT RESULT IN CONS TRUCTION AS THE APPELLANT IS NEITHER A BUILDER NOR RUNNING A CONSTRUCTION FIRM. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE I.T. RETURN IT HAS BEEN ONLY CLAIMED THAT LAND HAS BEEN SOLD AND NOT A CONSTRUCTED PROPERTY AND THE APPELLANT HAS INCURRED COST TO IMPRO VE BOTH THE LANDS WHICH WERE SOLD SUBSEQUENTLY. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND AT S. NO 46, PISOLI WAS UNDER URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976 AND THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY NO 11, PUNE URBAN AGGLOMERATION I N HIS ORDER DATED 29 - 7 - 2006 HAS CONFIRMED AS UNDER: 'THE MAINTENANCE SURVEYOR OF THIS OFFICE HAS VISITED THE SITE AND SUBMITTED THE REPORT ON 25/7/2006 AS FOLLOWS: - S.NO. PARTICULARS PLINTH LA. A.L.A . TOTAL 1 1 WATER TANK 18 - 58 37 - 16 55 - 74 2 1 WATER TANK 18 - 58 37 - 16 55 - 74 3 03 BORE 3 - 75 7 - 55 11 - 25 4 WALL COMPOUND 317 - 00 634 - 00 951 - 00 5 AREA UNDER SERVICE ROAD 496 - 00 TOTAL 1569 - 73 THE NON - VACANT AREA UNDER WATER TANK, WALL COMPOUND, AREA UN DER SERVICE ROAD IS 1569.73 SQ. MTRS, WHICH IS NON - BUILDABLE AND NON - VACANT EXCLUDED FORM THE HOLDING OF THE DECLARANTS. THE HOLDING OF THE DECLARANTS IS 10000.00 SQ.MTRS AND AFTER EXCLUDING THE NON - VACANT AREA ADMEASURING 1569.73 SQ. MTRS. [10000.00 ( - ) 1 569.73 = 8430.27 SQ. MTRS] NET VACANT LAND REMAINS WITH THE DECLARANTS ARE 8430.27 SQ. MTRS AND IT IS COMPUTED TOWARDS HIS HOLDING.' 3.4 IT HAS THUS BEEN CONTENDED THAT SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN THE LAND WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT INCURRING COST OF RS.20 LA CS JOINTLY WITH SPOUSE AND A COMPETENT GOVT. OFFICIAL HAS CARRIED OUT A DETAILED TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT BY PHYSICALLY VISITING THE LAND AND PREPARED AN EXHAUSTIVE REPORT AND THE SAID EVIDENCE HAS BEEN IGNORED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO 5 ITA NO S. 1139 & 1140 /PN/2013, SHRI ARUN MADANLAL SETH, PUNE EMPHASIZED THAT THE LAND AT PISOLI WAS SOLD ON 9 - 5 - 2007 WITHIN 9 MONTHS OF INSPECTION BY THE MAINTENANCE SURVEYOR FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, PUNE. THE APPELLANT HAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SURMISED THAT THE EXPENDITURE O N DEVELOPMENT OF LAND WAS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE WITH REFERENCE TO THE COST OF LAND, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORED THE HUGE GAP BETWEEN THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND SALE PRICE OF LAND. 3.5 THE MATERIAL ON RECORD HAS BEEN PERUSED AND THE SUBMISS ION MADE BY THE APPELLANT DULY CONSIDERED. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS NOTICED THAT THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH HIS WIFE FOR THE PISOLI LAND WAS RS.20 LACS AND THAT OF UNDRI LAND WAS OF RS.10 LACS. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS RAISED DOUBT ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT ON LABOUR PAYMENTS WHICH WAS FOUND BY HIM TO BE SELF MADE AND THE EXPENDITURE HELD TO BE UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE WITH REFERENCE TO THE COST OF LAND. IN THE INSPECTION REPORT THE DATE OF REPORT MENTIONED IS 14 - 11 - 2010 WHICH APPEARS TO BE A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DIRECTED HIM ON 14.12.2010 AND THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION IS CORRECT THAT THE REPORT CANNOT PRECEDE VERIFICATION. IN ANY CASE, THE REPORT STATES T HAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR SIGNING THE LABOUR PAYMENT VOUCHER, SHRI RAMDAS KAD EXPIRED ON 6 - 7 - 2004 AND THE WORK DONE WAS ONLY LABOUR WORK AND THAT THE LAND HAS BEEN REPORTED TO BE OPEN, VACANT AND NO CONSTRUCTION WAS FOUND ON THE LAND. THUS THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS RELIED ON THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR IN DRAWING CONCLUSION TO THE FACT THAT NO DEVELOPMENT/IMPROVEMENT WORK WAS FOUND ON THE LAND AT PISOLI AND UNDRI AND HENCE THE EXPENSES VOUCHER RELATED TO THE LABOUR PAYMENT WAS NOT GENUINE. HOWEVER, WIT H RESPECT TO THE EXPENSES FOR THE PISOLI LAND THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR PUNE URBAN AGGLOMERATION DATED 29 - 7 - 2006 HAS TOTALLY BEEN IGNORED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WHICH THE REPORT OF THE MAINTENANCE SURVEYOR DATED 25 - 7 - 2006 HAS BEEN QUOTED AND W HICH STATES THAT IN THE NON - VACANT AREA THERE WERE 2 UNDER WATER TANKS, 3 BORES, WALL COMPOUND AND AREA UNDER SERVICE ROAD. THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE IGNORED AND WHICH HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY A COMPETENT GOVT. OFFICIAL AND AS A PPARENT FROM THE SAID REPORT WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS FILED DURING THE APPELLATE 6 ITA NO S. 1139 & 1140 /PN/2013, SHRI ARUN MADANLAL SETH, PUNE PROCEEDINGS, AND THE SAME HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO A TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT BY PHYSICALLY VISITING THE LAND. THE INSPECTOR, IT APPEARS HAS NOT CARRIED OUT PROPER VERIFICATION AND EN QUIRY WITH RESPECT TO THE TWO LANDS AS IT BECOMES APPARENT FROM THE FINDINGS AS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT OBJECTIVE AND IS TOO GENERALIZED AND WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RE CORD EXCEPT FOR THE INSPECTOR'S REPORT HAS RESORTED TO THE DISALLOWANCE. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SEEN THAT THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR IS TOO GENERAL AND NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, PUNE URBAN AGGLOMERATION DATED 29 - 7 - 2006. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS EVEN THE LABOUR WORK CARRIED OUT BY RAMDAS KAD COULD NOT BE DENIED THOUGH THE NECESSARY VERIFICATION COULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT BECAUSE OF HIS DEATH ON 7 - 7 - 2004. THE INSPECTOR HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE FACT OF THE LABOU R WORK HAVING BEEN CARRIED OUT ON THE SAID LANDS. 3.6 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACT, THE CLAIM OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT/DEVELOPMENT BY THE APPELLANT APPEARS TO BE PRIMA FACIE CORRECT AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME QUALIFIES FOR DEDUCTION FROM THE VALUE OF CON SIDERATION U/S 48(II) OF THE ACT FOR WORKING OUT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF THE TWO PROPERTIES. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS LI ABLE TO BE ALLOWED. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5 . WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE FACTS ON RECORD THE LAND AT PISOLI S. NO. 46, WAS UNDER URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULAT ION) ACT, 1976 AND AS PER THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, PUNE THERE WERE TWO WATER TANK S , COMPOUND WALL ETC. THIS ORDER WAS DISCARDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MOREOVER, W E FIND THAT THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE IS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASI S OF INSPECTOR S REPORT WHO APPEARS TO BE VISITED THE SITE. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED 7 ITA NO S. 1139 & 1140 /PN/2013, SHRI ARUN MADANLAL SETH, PUNE BY THE ASSESSEE THEN HE COULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO AS INSPECTOR CANNOT HAVE EXPERTISE TO MAKE THE PROPER ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPERTY. THE ACT HAS ALREADY PROVIDED THE MECHANISM IN SITUATION W HERE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OR COST OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS IN DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE R E VENUE. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTED BY THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY NO. 11, PUNE IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN SPECIFIED THAT THERE ARE TWO WATER TANK, THREE BORE, COMPOUND WALL ETC. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE VOUCHERS TOWARDS THE LABOUR PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF THE LABOUR WORK BUT THE FACT REMAIN THAT SHRI RAMDAS KAD WHO HAS DONE THE LABOUR WORK HAS EXPIRED ON 06 - 07 - 2004. MOREOVER, THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, PUNE URBAN AGGLOM ERATION DATED 29 - 07 - 2006 HAS TOTALLY BEEN IGNORED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE AND WE, ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6 . NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 1140/PN/2013. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND COST OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE TWO LANDS ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REBUT SUCH EVIDENCE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING SUCH CLAIM FOR BOTH THE LANDS RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR PISOLI LAND ONLY. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING SUCH CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE SELF MADE V OUCHERS BELOW RS.20,000/ - EACH SIGNED BY A PERSON ALREADY EXPIRED AND 8 ITA NO S. 1139 & 1140 /PN/2013, SHRI ARUN MADANLAL SETH, PUNE REJECTING THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR WHO VISITED THE IMPUGNED PREMISES TO REPORT THAT IT WAS ONLY BARE VACANT LAND. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING S UCH CLAIM WITHOUT PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH COST OF IMPROVEMENT/DEVELOPMENT WAS INCURRED. 7 . IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AS IN THE ITA NO. 1139/PN/2013 WHICH W E HAVE ALREADY DECIDED HERE - IN - ABOVE. MOREOVER, THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE VERBATIM AS TO ITA NO. 1139/PN/2013. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR REASONS IN ITA NO. 1139/PN/2013 DISMISS THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A). 8 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 - 0 8 - 201 4 SD/ - SD/ - ( R.K. PANDA ) ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RK /PS PUNE , DATED : 28 TH AUGUST, 20 1 4 COPY TO 1 ASSESSEE 2 DEPARTMENT 3 THE CIT(A) - II, PUNE 4 THE CIT - II, PUNE 5 THE DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE . 6 GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBU NAL PUNE