Sh. Jitender Kaushik, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2178/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 217820114 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 24-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Keywords: Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2178/DEL/2015 ASSTT. YRS: 2010-11 JITENDER KAUSHIK VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 182, HARI NAGAR, ASHRAM, WARD 32(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN: AASPK 5501 A ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.S. SINGHVI CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. JAIN ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 24/07/2015. DATE OF ORDER : 29/07/2015. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M.. : THIS APPEAL, PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECT ED AGAINST CIT(A)-18, NEW DELHIS ORDER DATED 10-02-2015 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. 315/14-15, RELATING TO A.Y. 2010-11. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT FOR THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 1,41,310/- , WHICH WAS REVISED TO RS. 9,61,990/-. IN THE REVISED RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 7,80,000/- ON THE SALE OF HIS 1/3 RD SHARE IN PROPERTY AT GROUND AND 2ND FLOOR, SHAKTI KHAND-IV/714, INDIRAPURAM, GHAZIABAD. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HAD CLAIMED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF PLOT AT RS. 11,41,000/- (1/3 RD SHARE) FOR EACH FLOOR. THE AO DISALLOWED 20% OF THE CONSTRUCTI ON EXPENSES I.E. RS. 4,56,400/- FOR NON-PRODUCTION OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS . LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE 2 ASSESSEES APPEAL. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ME. SOLE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS AS UNDER: THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 2,2 8,200/- BEING AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF THE CONSTRUCTION EXPE NSES WHICH WERE NOT RELEVANT TO THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO D ISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE BECAUSE THE EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED IN EARLIER Y EARS. 3. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES, I FIND THAT THE AO HAS MADE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF 20% ON ACCOUNT OF NON-P RODUCTION OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS. I AM NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTIO N OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN EARLIER YE ARS, THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING D EDUCTION IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEREFORE, AO WAS REQUIRED TO EXAM INE THE CORRECTNESS OF ASSESSEES CLAIM. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO IS ON HIGHER SIDE AND IN ORDER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE THE ADDITION IS RESTRIC TED TO 10%. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29/07/2015. SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29/07/2015. *MP* COPY OF ORDER TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.