ITO, New Delhi V. Smt. Surren Chanana, New Delhi

ITA 1649/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6479 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA
• Section: 143(3); 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1615 /DEL/201 4 A.Y. : 200 9 - 10 MRS. SURREN CHANANA, L-1/11, HAUZ KHAS ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 24(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND ITA NO. 1649 /DEL/201 4 A.Y. : 200 9 - 10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 24(1), NEW DELHI VS. MRS. SURREN CHANANA, L-1/11, HAUZ KHAS ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAEPC8750D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV. & SH. SOMIL AGGARWAL, ADV. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20/1/2 014 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXII I PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE RELATED WITH THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR, HENC E, THE 2 APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL NO. 1615/DEL/2014 (AY 2009-10) READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN N OT CONSIDERING THE GPA GIVEN BY THE SELLER AND REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 BY SOLELY CONSIDERING THE AGREEMENT TO S ELL. 3. THAT THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER IS ARBITRARY, ILLE GAL, BAD IN LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF RUDIMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF CONTEMPORARY JURISPRUDENCE. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD. ALTER ANY/ AL L GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING O F THE APPEAL. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL NO. 1649/DEL/2014 (AY 2009-10) READ AS UNDER:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS. 61,97,460/- ON ACCOUNT OF SETTING OFF OF LONG TERM C APITAL LOSS AGAINST LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PROP ERTY, THOUGH APPARENTLY, THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF PRO PERTY FROM HER HUSBAND WAS A SHAM TRANSACTION TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 54. 3 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING COST OF ADDITIONS / IMPROVEMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 17,40,000/- THOUGH NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS PERVERSE BOTH IN FACTS AND LAW. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AM END ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. ASSESSEES APPEAL (ITA NO. 1615/DEL/2014 AY- 2009- 10) 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RETURN OF IN COME DECLARING NET INCOME OF R.28,42,810/- WAS FILED ON 31.10.2009. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 196 1. LATER, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND STATUTORY NOTICE U/S . 143(2)OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 20.08.2010. DURING THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS HAS BEEN DECLARED U/S. 44AF OF THE I.T. ACT. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE A SSESSEE HAS SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS ON SALE OF HAUZ KHAS PR OPERTY, ON WHICH BENEFIT OF INDEXATION HAS BEEN TAKEN. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF RESIDENTI AL HOUSE AT 4 NOIDA, ON WHICH APART FROM BENEFIT OF INDEXATION, TH E ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 54 AS WELL AS U/S. 54EC. THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS ON SALE OF HAUZ KHAS PROPERTY HAS BEEN S ET-OFF AGAINST LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF NOIDA HOUSE. THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE HAUZ KHAS PROPERTY WAS SOLD B Y THE ASSESSEE TO HER HUSBAND DR. CHARANJIT CHANANA. AO ALSO FOUND AT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A DEDUCTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT WAS WITH REFERENCE TO PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT MUMB AI FOR RS.1.20 CRORES, WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY HER FROM HER DAUGHTER MS. ANJALI CHANANA VIDE AN AGREEMENT TO SELL DT. 30.10.2008 ON A NON-JUDICIAL STAMP PAPER OF RS.50/-, WHICH WAS SIGNED BY BOTH THE PARTIES WITHOUT ANY WITNESSES. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ISSUED A QU ESTIONNAIRE TO THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THIS WHOLE STORY APPEARED T O BE A MANUFACTURED ONE, TO OFF-SET AND MINIMIZE THE CAPITAL GAIN TAX. ALL THE PROPERTIES REMAINED WITHIN THE FAMILY OF THE APPELL ANT AND ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE WITHIN THE FAMILY. THE AO REQUIR ED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY TRANSACTION FOR SALE OF PROPER TY AT HAUZ KHAS AND MUMBAI MAY NOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS SALES. TH E AO CONSIDERED THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT HE D ID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HER SALE OF 60% PORTI ON OF HER HAUZ KHAS PROPERTY TO HER OWN HUSBAND WAS GENUINE, D ESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SALE DEED OF THE PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED AT CIRCLE RATE 5 AND STAMP DUTY WAS DULY PAID THEREON. THE AO ALSO DID NOT ACCEPT THE ALLEGED SALE OF MUMBAI FLAT BY THE ASSESSEE'S DAU GHTER MS. ANJALI CHANANA TO HER MOTHER, SINCE, THE SALE DEED WI TH REFERENCE TO THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT REGISTERED AND THE AGREEMENT TO SE LL WAS ONLY ON A NON-JUDICIAL STAMP PAPER OF RS.50/- WITHOUT ANY WITNESSES. THE AO HELD THAT BOTH THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE BOGUS TRANSACT IONS, ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE TO MINIMIZE THE TAX INCIDE NCE ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF HER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN NOIDA. THEREFORE, THE AO BROUGHT TO TAX THE C APITAL GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF NOIDA PROPERTY, AF TER DISALLOWING THE CAPITAL LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF HAUZ KHAS PROPERTY AND DEDUCTION U/S. 54 FOR PURCHASE OF RESIDE NTIAL FLAT AT MUMBAI. FURTHER, WHILE CALCULATING THE CAPITAL GAINS W ITH REGARDS TO THE NOIDA PROPERTY, THE AO RESTRICTED THE COST OF IMPR OVEMENT AND ADDITIONS OF RS.17,40,OOO/- PERTAINING TO F.Y. 1992- 93 TO RS.10 LACS ONLY. HE ALSO DID NOT ALLOW CARRY FORWARD AND S ET-OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF RS.4,90,202/- IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ASSESSED THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 2,34,61,770/- VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 9 .12.2011 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS SESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED 6 ORDER DATED 20.1.2014 HAS UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO OF NOT ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 . 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE ONL Y ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST NOT ALLOWING THE EXE MPTION U/S. 54 OF THE I.T. ACT, IN RESPECT OF FLAT OF RS. 1,20,00,0 00/- PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER DAUGHTER ON THE GROUND THAT THE H OUSE WAS NOT REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTH ER STATED THAT SECTION 54 REQUIRES THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD BE PURCHAS ED AND IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE HOUSEL SHO ULD BE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER STA TED THAT EVERBODY IS ENTITLED TO ARRANGE HIS AFFAIRS WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF LAW, EVEN IF IT RESULTS INTO THE REDUCTION OF TOTAL TA X LIABILITY AND REFERRED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF UOI VS. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC). 8. AN THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT( A). WE FIND THAT ONLY ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST NOT ALLOWING THE 7 EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF FLAT OF RS . 1,20,00,000/- PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER DAUGHTER ON THE GR OUND THAT THE HOUSE WAS NOT REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSE SSEE. WE ALSO FIND THAT SECTION 54 OF THE ACT REQUIRES THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD BE PURCHASED. IT IS ALSO A SETTLED LAW THAT IT IS NOT N ECESSARY THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD BE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESS EE. IN OUR VIEW EVERYBODY IS ENTITLED TO ARRANGE HIS AFFAIRS WI THIN THE PARAMETERS OF LAW, EVEN IF IT RESULTS INTO THE REDUCTI ON OF TOTAL TAX LIABILITY. OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA VS. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54 OF TH E I.T. ACT, 1961 AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL . AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. REVENUES APPEAL (ITA NO. 1649/DEL/2014 AY 2009-10) 10. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 1 RELATING TO DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 61,97,460/- ON ACCOUNT OF SETTIN G OFF OF LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS AGAINST LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SA LE OF PROPERTY AT HAUZ KHAS ON ITS TRANSFER. 10.1 ON THIS ISSUE, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REITERATED THE CONTENTS OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 8 10.2 ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND THAT L D. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FACTUAL FINDING THAT HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED 60% SHARE IN HAUZ KHAS PROPERTY AND GOT THE DEED REG ISTERED AND THAT SUCH TRANSACTION WAS LEGAL TRANSACTION AS PER THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, AND THE PAYMENT OF RS. 1.20 CRORES WAS MADE AS PER THE CIRCLE RATE AND STAMP DUTY HAS BEEN PAID AND THAT THOUGH ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND ARE STAYING TOGETHER BUT THE Y ARE NOT ON GOOD TERMS. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVE D THAT AO CANNOT DENY THE LEGALITY OF THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE AS SESSEE AND HER HUSBAND DR. CHARANJIT CHANANA, WHEREBY, THE A SSESSEE HAS SOLD 60% OF HER SHARE IN HER HAUZ KHAS PROPERTY TO H ER HUSBAND AND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HAS NO OPTION BUT TO ALLOW TH E RESULTANT LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO AL LOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN ASSESSEES APPEAL, AS AFORESAID. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A)S ACTION OF ALLOWING THE SET OFF LOSS OF RS. 61,97,640/- AGAI NST LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON MY PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THE GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 9 11. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 2 RELATING TO ALLOWING COST OF ADDITIONS /IMPROVEMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 17,40,000/-. 11.1 ON THIS ISSUE, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REITERATED THE CONTENTS OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 11.2 ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 11.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND THAT L D. CIT(A) HAS DEALT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE VIDE PARA NO. 4.3 AT PAGE NO. 6 TO 7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE RELEVANT PARA READ AS UNDER:- 4.3 IN GROUND NO.2, THE APPELLANT HAS IMPUGNED THE RESTRICTING OF INDEXED COST OF NOIDA HOUSE TO RS.1,05,75,256/- AGAINST THE INDEXED COST OF RS.1,25,06,557/- AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THE LD . AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS O LD IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AT NOIDA DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR RS.3.75 CRORES. SHE HAD ACQUIRED A PLOT OF LAND DURING F.Y. 1982-83 FROM NOIDA AUTHORITY FO R RS.3,60,130/-. SHE CARRIED OUT CONSTRUCTION ON THE SAI D PLOT DURING F.Y. 1992-93 BY SPENDING A SUM OF RS.17,40,000/-, OUT OF WHICH SHE HAD SPENT 10 RS.15,84,000/- ON COST OF CONSTRUCTION, WHICH WAS PA ID TO THE CONTRACTORS M/S. ABDUL WAZID & SONS AND A SUM OFRS.1,56,000/- WAS FURTHER INCURRED FOR DEVELOPMEN T AND MAKING CHANGES AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF NOIDA AUTHORITY FOR ISSUANCE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. ACCORDINGLY, THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY NOIDA AUTHORITY ON 21.05.1994, WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. SHE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF RECEI PTS ISSUED BY THE CONTRACTOR M/S. ABDUL WAZID & SONS DT. 10.05.1993. THE APPELLANT HAS ACCORDINGLY CALCULATED INDEXED ADDITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS, TAKING INTO CALCULATION THE AMOUNTS SPENT AT RS. 17,40,000/-. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS RESTRICTED THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LACS. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR. THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MADE A PURE ESTIMATE GIVING GENERAL OBSERVATIONS TO RESTRICT THE AMOUNT TO RS.10 LACS. HE COULD HAVE MADE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER WITHIN THE MEANING AND SCOPE OF SECTION 55A OF THE ACT . HOWEVER, HE DID NOT DO SO. THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED WAS PROVIDED TO THE AO IN THE RECEIP T 11 ISSUED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED AROUND TWENTY YEARS BACK IN F.Y. 1992-93. UNDER THES E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT TH AT THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY NOIDA AUTHORITY ON 21.05.1994, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO SHOULD NOT HAVE RESTRICTED THE COST OF ADDITIONS/IMPROVEMENTS T O RS.10 LACS ON ESTIMATE BASIS AS HE WAS NOT TECHNICALLY COMPETENT TO DO SO AND HE HAD DONE THIS BY GIVING A VAGUE ARGUMENT SAYING THAT IT WOULD NOT BE FEASIBL E TO ALLOW SUCH A HUGE EXPENSE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH CASU AL RECEIPTS. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW IND EXATION ON FULL AMOUNT OF RS. 17,40,000/-. THIS GROUND IS DE CIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 11.4 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT( A), AS AFORESAID, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD IMMOVA BLE PROPERTY AT NOIDA DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR RS.3.7 5 CRORES. SHE HAD ACQUIRED A PLOT OF LAND DURING F.Y. 1982-83 FROM NOIDA AUTHORITY FOR RS.3,60,130/-. SHE CARRIED OUT CONSTR UCTION ON THE SAID PLOT DURING F.Y. 1992-93 BY SPENDING A SUM OF RS.17 ,40,000/-, OUT OF WHICH SHE HAD SPENT RS.15,84,000/- ON COST OF CON STRUCTION, WHICH WAS PAID TO THE CONTRACTORS M/S. ABDUL WAZID & SONS AND A SUM OFRS.1,56,000/- WAS FURTHER INCURRED FOR DEVELOP MENT AND 12 MAKING CHANGES AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF NOIDA AUTHO RITY FOR ISSUANCE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. ACCORDINGLY, THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY NOIDA AUTHORITY ON 21.05.199 4. WE ALSO SEEN THE COPY OF RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE CONTRACTOR M /S. ABDUL WAZID & SONS DT. 10.05.1993. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCORDINGLY CALCULATED INDEXED ADDITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS, TAKING INTO CAL CULATION THE AMOUNTS SPENT AT RS. 17,40,000/-. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS RESTRICTED THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LACS. WE FIND THAT DURING THE APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT AO HAS MADE A PURE ESTIMATE GIVING GENERAL OBSERVATIONS TO RESTRICT TH E AMOUNT TO RS.10 LACS AND HE COULD HAVE MADE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER WITHIN THE MEANING AND SCOPE OF SECTION 55A O F THE ACT. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT DO SO. WE FIND THAT THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED WAS PROVIDED TO THE AO IN THE RECEI PT ISSUED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED AROUND TWE NTY YEARS BACK IN F.Y. 1992-93. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS I SSUED BY NOIDA AUTHORITY ON 21.05.1994, LD. CIT(A) WAS OF TH E OPINION THAT THE AO SHOULD NOT HAVE RESTRICTED THE COST OF ADDITIONS/IMPROVEMENTS TO RS.10 LACS ON ESTIMATE BASI S AS HE WAS NOT TECHNICALLY COMPETENT TO DO SO AND HE HAD DONE THIS BY GIVING A VAGUE ARGUMENT SAYING THAT IT WOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE TO ALLOW SUCH 13 A HUGE EXPENSE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH CASUAL RECEIPTS . IN VIEW OF ABOVE, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE AO TO A LLOW INDEXATION ON FULL AMOUNT OF RS. 17,40,000/- WHICH DOES NOT NEE D ANY INTERFERENCE ON MY PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AN D DISMISS THE GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED AND REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/12/2016. SD/- SD/- [O.P. KANT] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 16/12/2016 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES