R.Ganesh, CHENNAI V. ITO Non Corporate Ward 3, CHENNAI

ITA 2485/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8201 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2018
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SUBASHRI
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH: CHENNAI . . . , ! ' # , $ #% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2485/CHNY/2017 & '& /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SHRI R. GANESH, NEW NO.17 (OLD NO.6), V.GANGADHARAN STREET, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 034. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD-3, CHENNAI. [PAN: AAMPG 4786B] ( () /APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) () , - / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PHILIP GEORGE, ADVOCATE *+() , - /RESPONDENT BY : M/S. M. SUBASHRI, JCIT . , /$ /DATE OF HEARING : 14.03.2019 01' , / $ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.03.2019 / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -4, CHENNAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS CIT(A)) DATED 27.07.2017 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2013-14. 2. THE APPELLANT RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW, FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NO.2485/CHNY/2017 (AY: 2013-14) :- 2 -: 2. THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 14 3(3) WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 & 3 RAISED BEFORE HIM THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWE D THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.54 FOR THE IMPROVEMENT IN NEW R ESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY TOWARDS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE IM PROVEMENT IN THE NEWLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BASED ON THE EVIDENCES. 3. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE REASONS FOR T HE DELAYED SUBMISSION OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT ARE GENUINE AND BEYOND OUR CONTROL.. 4. THE CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE LEGALLY AND ALL THESE EMBEDDED EMBELLIS HMENTS WERE PHYSICALLY AVAILABLE IN THE PREMISES ITSELF, WHICH WILL CLEARLY PROVE THAT THE CLAIM OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT ARE GENUINE. 5. THE OBSERVATIONS RAISED BY CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE CONTRACTOR, M/S.SARAVANAN WOOD WORKS SITUATED AT NO.11-A, 3RD C ROSS STREET, SASTRI NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI ARE BASELESS AND WITHO UT ANY JUSTIFICATION. 6. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL G ROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL. THE RETURN OF INCO ME FOR THE AY 2013-14 WAS FILED ON 31.03.2014 DISCLOSING TOTAL IN COME OF RS.95,88,930/-. AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASST. CIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-3, CHENNAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED AO) VIDE ORDER DATED 07.03.20 16 PASSES U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,33,67,976/-. WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER (AO) HAD NOT ALLOWED THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS AS PART OF THE COS T OF ACQUISITION. ITA NO.2485/CHNY/2017 (AY: 2013-14) :- 3 -: 4. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE PRESENT ADDITION AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT OWNS A PROPERTY AT HOUSE NO.17, VYAS ARPADI GANGADAR MUDALI STREET, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI AND T HIS PROPERTY WAS GIVEN FOR DEVELOPMENT WITH PRIME SOCIETIES IN T ERMS OF SAID JDA, THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED TWO FLATS NAMELY FLAT NO.1A & 1B AND 600 SQ. FT. OF TERRACE AND APART FROM CASH CONSIDERATION OF RS. 65 LAKHS. DURING THE COURSE OF PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD THIS FLAT ON 18.02.2014 IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WERE COMPUTED. WHILE COMPUTING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL G AINS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BETTERMENT CHARGES AS COST OF THE ACQUI SITION OF THE FLATS. THE AO HAD NOT ALLOWED THIS COST OF IMPROVEMENT FOR WANT OF PROOF. EVEN IN APPEAL BEFORE, LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME AND HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITI ON. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE US IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS BASED ON THE PR OPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS. THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE P ROVED BY ADDUCING EVIDENCE WHICH THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO DO. EVEN BEFORE US NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED IN SUPPORT OF THE COST OF IMPRO VEMENT AND THEREFORE, ITA NO.2485/CHNY/2017 (AY: 2013-14) :- 4 -: WE CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HE NCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 28 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! ' # ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) $ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED: 28 TH MARCH, 2019. EDN, SR. P.S , */34 54'/ /COPY TO: 1. () /APPELLANT 2. *+() /RESPONDENT 3. . 6/ ( )/CIT(A) 4. . 6/ /CIT 5. 47 */ /DR 6. & 8 /GF