P.M.Mukundan, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1240/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8176 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI JCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: J SREE VIDYA
• Keywords: Business income; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . !'# !$% BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER !& ./ I.T.A.NO.1240 /MDS./2015 ( ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011-12) SHRI P.M.MUKUNDAN , 85A,DHANASHREE APARTMENTS, KAMDAR NAGAR, 3 RD STREET, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 034. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD-XV(4), CHENNAI. PAN AEWPM 9503 Q ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) )* + , ! / APPELLANT BY : MR.J.SREE VIDYA,ADVOCATE -.)* + , ! / RESPONDENT BY : MR.A.B.KOLI,JCIT, D.R ! + /0 / DATE OF HEARING : 20.01.2016 12( + /0 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.01.2016 / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)- 4, CHENNAI DATED 25.03.2015 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 . ITA NO.1240/MDS/2015 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) IS WRONG ILLEGAL AND OPPOSED TO FACTS. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING FACTS OF THE CASE AND TH E SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE HIM IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE. 2 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT DETERMINING THE BUSINESS IN COME AT RS.44,47,670/-AS AGAINST RS11,31,590 ADMITTED BY TH E ASSESSES. 2.2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT ALTHOUGH THE AC HAD DISALLOWED THE COST OF IMPROVEM ENT OF RS.33,41,138 AND ASKING TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO MOR E THAN 30 YEARS WHICH WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE THE THIRTY YEARS RECORDS. 3.1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WENT W RONG IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.33,41,138/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALL OWANCE OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT. 3 2 IN ANY EVENT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAVING ENHANCED THE BUSINESS INCOME ADMITTED OF RS 44,47,6 70/- FROM RETURNED INCOME OF RS 11,31,590/-. 4.1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS 32,42,138/-- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFIC ER TOWARD DISALLOWANCE OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT. 4.2 THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) WENT WRONG IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, MATERIALS ON RECORD AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. 4.3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY DISALLOWING THE COS T OF IMPROVEMENT WHICH PERTAIN TO 30 YEARS BACK. 4.4 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OF THE COST OF INDEXED IMPROVEMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.32,42,138/- F OR WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT INTERESTED IN ALLOWING TH E DEDUCTION. ITA NO.1240/MDS/2015 3 4.5 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAD EVEN DURING THE C OURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING REJECTED THE COST OF INDEXED IMPROVEMENT AND MADE ADDITIONS. 5 THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) IS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED COST OF INDEXED IMPROVEMENT AT ` 33,42,138/-. THERE WAS NO MATERIAL ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTING THE COST OF IMPR OVEMENT. AS SUCH, CLAIM FOR INDEXATION OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT I S DISALLOWED BY THE REVENUE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. BEFORE US, THE LD.A.R PLEADED THAT THE DET AILS RELATING TO THE IMPROVEMENTS WAS MENTIONED IN THE LETTERS DATED 27. 12.2013 & 09.01.2014 FILED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. IN LIEU OF THE PASSAGE OF 30 LONG YEARS, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PRO DUCE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE AL LOWED. BUT IN OUR OPINION, WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS ANY COST OF IMPRO VEMENT, IT IS PRIMARY DUTY TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE FOR THE SAME. NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER MADE AVAILABLE EITHER BEFORE THE LOWER A UTHORITIES, OR ITA NO.1240/MDS/2015 4 BEFORE US. BEING SO, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO U PHOLD THE ARGUMENT OF LD.A.R AND THE SAME IS REJECTED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS REJECTE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY , THE 22 ND OF JANUARY,2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( ( &5 6 7 ) ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 22 ND JANUARY,2016 . K S SUNDARAM. '8 + - /9: ;:(/ /COPY TO: 1. )* /APPELLANT 2. -.)* /RESPONDENT 3. - / /DR 6. >' ? /GF