Nilesh Bhagwan Londhe, Pune V. ITO, Ward-14(2), Pune, Pune

ITA 1272/PUN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9028 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.1272/PUN./2023 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Nilesh Bhagwan Londhe, Shop No.1, Harpale Building, Gadital Hadapsar, Pune-411028. Maharashtra. PAN ABYPL2115L vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 14 (2), Bodhi Towers, Gultekadi, Pune-411037. Maharashtra (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kishor B Phadke For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of Hearing : 24.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 25.01.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016- 2017, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1057085226(1), dated 16.10.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 2 I.T.A.No.1272/PUN./2023 1. “The CIT(A) NFAC (hereinafter called as learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of cost of development expenses amounting to Rs.30,56,854/- made by the learned AO against the sale of Plot at GAT no 115, Kesnand, Pune. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of cost of development expenses incurred amounting to Rs.30,56,854/- for Plot at GAT no 115, Kesnand without considering the detailed submission made along documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of such expenditure vide submission dated 10/05/2023. Learned CIT(A) erred in observing that, appellant could not furnish any supporting documentary evidence for claim of development expenses without appreciating that, the appellant has submitted relevant documents/information during appellate proceedings. 3. Appellant craves leave to add/alter/delete/modify, all/ any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. We are next taken to the NFAC’s detailed discussion upholding the assessment findings making the impugned disallowance as under : 3 I.T.A.No.1272/PUN./2023 4 I.T.A.No.1272/PUN./2023 4. Learned counsel vehemently argued during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in disallowing the assessee’s payment of Rs.30,56,854/- of development/improvement expenditure; incurred on the short term capital asset which was purchased and sold during the relevant financial year. He made it clear that despite the fact that the assessee had filed all the relevant details including the expenditure vouchers, recipients’ details as well as supportive material, the same have nowhere been considered or discussed in the lower proceedings. 5. The Revenue has strongly supported both the learned lower authorities action disallowing the assessee’s impugned expenditure claim. 5 I.T.A.No.1272/PUN./2023 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival stands and see no merit in assessee’s arguments. We make it clear first of all that the assessee had co-purchased the land in question on 23.09.2015 followed by the partial sale thereof in the very previous year i.e., 29.01.2016 only. Meaning thereby that his specific portion in the said parcel of land has never seen full-fledged partition even as on date. We sought to note from the assessee side in this factual backdrop as to how he could claim specific expenditure on his own without having received the earmarked portion. He replies that he has filed all the relevant details and therefore, entitled for the impugned expenditure for computing his short term capital gains. We see no merit in assessee’s submissions as merely by filing documentary evidences, he could hardly meet the case of allowability of expenditure on account of his failure to prove the corroborative circumstances. Rejected accordingly. 7. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.01.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 25 th January, 2024 VBP/- 6 I.T.A.No.1272/PUN./2023 Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The NFAC, Delhi. 4. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.