Smt. Nupur Singh, Ghaziabad V. DCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 1786/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2816 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R SENAPATI
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES E : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.1786/DEL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 SMT. NUPUR SINGH, GHAZIABAD. C/O. RAVI KUMAR & CO.C.AS 9/64, RAJ NAGAR, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH. PAN AONPS6681N VS THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 GHAZIABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI ANKUR GOEL, ADVOCATE FOR REVENUE : SHRI S.R. SENAPATI, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 15.03.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.03.2018 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), GHAZIABAD, DATED 08 TH DECEMBER, 2014, FOR THE A.Y. 2010-2011. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSE E FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1.07 CRORES . DURING THE 2 ITA.NO.1786/DEL./2015 SMT. NUPUR SINGH, GHAZIABAD, U.P. YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD TWO PROPERTIES AND DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS. WHILE COMPUTING THE CAP ITAL GAINS ON THE PROPERTIES, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN DEVELOPME NT COST OF RS.1.02,559 AND RS.4,24,000 ON PROPERTY AT CHOGANPU R, DADRI AND AND PROPERTY AT NOORNAGAR, GHAZIABAD. THE ASSES SEE WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS OR ANY O THER DOCUMENT IN RESPECT OF DEVELOPMENT COST WHICH HAS B EEN INCURRED. IN REPLY TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT HER MOTHER MADE PAYMENTS TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT COST AND F ILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF HER MOTHER SMT. TEJ KUMARI CONFIRMING THAT THE SAME WAS INCURRED BY HER. IN SUPPORT, COPY OF HER B ANK STATEMENT SHOWING CASH WITHDRAWAL WAS FILED, HOWEVE R, NO BILL OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED TO VERIFY THAT E XPENSES HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY INCURRED. THE A.O, THEREFORE, NO TED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT DEVELOPMENT COST HAS BEEN INCURRED. THEREFORE, COST OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT W AS NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATING THE COST OF ACQUISITION. 3 ITA.NO.1786/DEL./2015 SMT. NUPUR SINGH, GHAZIABAD, U.P. 3. THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME FACTS BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ISSUE TO BE D ECIDED IS - WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ALLOWED COST OF IMPRO VEMENT WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSE E ? THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THE UNCONTROVERTED FACT IS THAT NO BIL LS OF THE SAID COST OF IMPROVEMENT HAD BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE A. O. AT THE APPELLATE STAGE ALSO, ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAS EXPRES SED HIS INABILITY IN PRODUCING SUCH BILLS ON THE PRETEXT TH AT MAINTAINING BILLS IN THIS KIND OF TRADE IS NOT POSSIBLE. THE AS SESSEE, THEREFORE, DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CONT ENTION THAT ANY IMPROVEMENT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE PROPERTY. THE REFORE, ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF HIS CLA IM. THE AFFIDAVIT OF MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE SELF-SERVING STATEMENT ONLY. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE WAS, ACCORDI NGLY, DISMISSED. 4. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS CHALLENG ED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN DISALLOWING DEVELOPMENT 4 ITA.NO.1786/DEL./2015 SMT. NUPUR SINGH, GHAZIABAD, U.P. COST OF RS.1,02,559 AND RS.4,29,000 WHILE CALCULATI NG THE CAPITAL GAINS. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AN A DMITTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEVELOPMENT COST. HOWEVER, AS SESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH C ONTENTION. AFFIDAVIT OF MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, WOULD NOT BE R ELEVANT AND WOULD NOT PROVE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE EXPRESSED INABILITY TO PRODUCE ANY BILLS/VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT ANY IMPROVEMENT WAS MADE IN THE PRO PERTY, FOR WHICH, CAPITAL GAIN HAVE BEEN CALCULATED. IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (LP SAHU) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI, DATED 20 TH MARCH, 2018 VBP/- 5 ITA.NO.1786/DEL./2015 SMT. NUPUR SINGH, GHAZIABAD, U.P. COPY TO 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT E BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. // BY ORDER // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR : ITAT DELHI BENCHES : DELHI.