Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chittoor V. Farzana Pattan , Chittoor

ITA 2062/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8185 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROHIT MAJUMDAR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member AND Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member O R D E R This Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tirupati’s order dated 02.08.2018 in case No.10012/2016-17/CIT(A)/TPT involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee’s improvements and additions as claim of Rs.1,67,24,187/-, we note that the corresponding lower appellate discussion to this affect reads as under : ITA No.2062/Hyd/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Chittoor. Vs. Smt. Farzana Pattan, Palamaner, Chittoor District. PAN : ANZPP3045N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar. Revenue by : Shri Rohit Majumdar. Date of hearing: 13.01.2022 Date of pronouncement: 24.02.2022 ITA No.2062/Hyd/2018 2 4.2..... ITA No.2062/Hyd/2018 3 ITA No.2062/Hyd/2018 4 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to vehement rival contentions against and in support of the correctness of the CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate action and find no reason to accept either party’s submissions in entirety. This is primarily for the reason that although the assessee had successfully declared in the preceding financial years to have made the part of constructions of the sheds in issue along with all the necessary evidence of the corresponding construction agreements, contractor names and addresses as well as the payments made in issue, the fact also remains that she has made all the payments in cash wherein possibility of inflation of expenses cannot be per se ruled out. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate that a lumpsum disallowance of Rs.15 lakhs out of Rs.1,67,24,187/- will be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated ITA No.2062/Hyd/2018 5 as precedent in any other case. Necessary computation shall fallow as per law. The CIT(A)’s directions deleting the impugned disallowance are upheld to the extent of Rs.1,52,24,187/- in other words. No other ground has been pressed before us. 4. This Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24 th February, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 24 th February, 2022. TYNM/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Smt. Farzana Pattan, D.No.11-101, Lalbahadur Nagar, MBT Road, Palamaner – 517408, Chittoor District. 2 The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Chittoor. 3 CIT (A) – Tirupathi. 4 Pr.CIT – Tirupathi. 5 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 6 Guard File By Order