Seetha Cheeti, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward 6(4), Hyderabad

ITA 291/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6017 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN MALIK
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Capital asset; Additional evidence
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 291/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SMT. SEETHA CHEETI, HYDERABAD. PAN ABJPC7571 N VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(4), HYDERABAD. () (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM REVENUE BY : SMT. SUMAN MALIK DATE OF HEARING : 02-03-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-03-2017 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) - IV, HYD ERABAD, DATED 11/01/2013 FOR AY 2009-10. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2009-10 ON 31/07/2009 D ECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 11,15,034/-. THE ASSESSEE JOINTLY WI TH HER HUSBAND, SRI CHEETI SAJJAN RAO, SOLD A PLOT OF LAND FOR RS. 1,38,75,000/- (1/2 SHARE) AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 54F FOR THE CAPIT AL GAINS OF RS. 1,05,73,809/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE C LAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F. HE ALSO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF COST OF IMPR OVEMENT OF RS. 4,00,000/- INCURRED ON THE PROPERTY SOLD AND ESTIMA TED THE INCOME FROM THE ASSESSEES HOUSE PROPERTY AT OOTY. THE TOT AL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 1,21,77,445/-. 2 ITA NO. 291/H/13 SMT. SEETHA CHEETI 3. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PRE FERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED T HE ORDER OF AO. 4. STILL AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1 . THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(APPEALS)- IV, ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HELD MORE THAN O NE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET ON THE DATE OF TRANS FER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(APPEALS) -IV, OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT PROPERTY AT OOTY WAS NOT A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAINS. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(APPEALS) -IV, ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS COST OF IMPROVEMENT THE PROPERTY SOLD DURIN G THE YEAR. 5. AS REGARDS GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 RELATING TO THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOL D 750 SQ. YARDS OF LAND AT PLOT NO. 250 III, ROAD NO. 78, JUBILEE HILL S HYDERABAD, OWNED JOINTLY WITH HER HUSBAND, DR. CHEETI SAJJAN RAO, FO R A SUM OF RS. 1,38,75,000/- (BEING HER SHARE OF SALE CONSIDERATIO N). THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 54F ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF HOUSE OF RS. 78,92,800/- AND AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN CA PITAL GAIN DEPOSIT ACCOUNT OF RS. 60,00,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER O BSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES ON THE DATE OF SALE OF THE ORIGINAL CAPITAL ASSET: (1) HOUSE NO. 8-2-293/82/A/1179/1, ROAD NO. 45, JUB ILEE HILLS HYDERABAD; (2) HOUSE, OWNED JOINTLY WITH HER HUSBAND, SRI CH. SAJJAN RAO, ON 256/16 CENTS OF LAND AT OOTY, TAMILNADU. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE INVEST MENT IN PURCHASE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAD BEEN MADE JOINTLY WITH SRI GOPAL VENU VEMULA AND THE WAS THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDU CTION U/S.54. 3 ITA NO. 291/H/13 SMT. SEETHA CHEETI 5.1 THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT SHE WAS THE OWNER O F THE HOUSE AT ROAD NO. 45, JUBILEE HILLS. HOWEVER, SHE DISPUTED T HE EXISTENCE OF A HOUSE AT OOTY AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY AT OO TY WAS MERELY LAND (1/2 SHARE) WITHOUT ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FROM WHICH AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAD BEEN ADMITTED IN HER RETURN. 5.3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ASSESSEE'S C LAIM FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: A. THE SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE SALE DEE D DTD. 11.2.2005 FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT OOTY SHOW ED THE FOLLOWING NARRATION: 'R.S.NO TOTAL EXTENT EXTENT CONVE YED AC CTS AC CTS 741 J/2/1/1 5 57 12/16 0.25 6/16 TOGETHER WI TH BUILDING THEREON BEA RING DOOR NO. 356/A, WITH ASST. NO. 64358 WARD NO. 33, EB SERVICE CONNECTION NO. 296. B. AS PER STATEMENT UNDER RULE 3(1) OF THE TAMILNAD U PREVENTION OF UNDERVALUATION OF INSTRUMENTS RULES - 1968, ANNEXED TO THE SALE DEED SHOWED THE FOLLOWING NARRA TION: --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- SL. RS NO. EXTENT NATURE OF MARKET VALUE AS PER GUIDELINE PROPERTY EXECUT ANTS OWN VALUE ASSESSMENT --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- 1 741 0. 25 6/16 LAND RS. 10,68,000 RS.15,48,820 2. 741 BUILDING RS. 2,00, 000 RS. 2,00,000 TOTAL RS. 12,68,0 00 RS.17,48,820 C. THE ANNEXURE 1A OF THE SALE DEED GIVES THE FOLLO WING DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING: 'PARTLY LIME AND MUD MOTOR COUNTRY TILE, THICKNESS OF WALLS IN GROUND FLOOR IS 1 1/2 FEET, FLOORING IS ORDINARILY PLASTERED, BUILT - UP AREA OF THE BUILDING IS 1600 SQ. FT.' 4 ITA NO. 291/H/13 SMT. SEETHA CHEETI D. PAGE 10 OF THE SALE DEED SPECIFIED THAT THE VEND ORS WERE ENTITLED TO TAKE 1/2 INCH PIPE CONNECTION FROM THE STORAGE TANK FOR DOMESTIC PURPOSES. E. NO EVIDENCE OR DETAILS HAD BEEN FURNISHED FOR TH E AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 5,000/- CLAIMED IN THE .RETURN AND IT S BASIS WAS NOT SPECIFIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, REJECTED THE CLAI M THAT THERE WAS NO RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON THE LAND AT OOTY. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 7. IN THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE STRUCTURE AT THE LAND AT OOTY WAS MERELY A N OUTHOUSE IN THE NATURE OF A SECURITY GUARD ROOM, 130 YEARS OLD, WHI CH COULD NOT BE TREATED AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THOUGH FOR THE PURPO SE OF REGISTRATION, STAMP DUTY HAD BEEN COLLECTED ON THE STRUCTURE. THE AR ALSO SUBMITTED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE OOTY PROPERTY IN SUPPO RT OF THE CLAIM THAT THE PROPERTY WAS MERELY AN OUTHOUSE. THIS WAS IN THE NATURE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE FILED EARLIER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS SINCE THE ASSESSEE, BEING A NON RESIDENT, WAS OUT OF THE COUN TRY. IN VIEW OF THIS EXPLANATION, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED A ND REFERRED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS. 7.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS LETTER DTD. 6.1 2.2012 HAS SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS: ' AS SEEN FROM THE PHOTOGRAPH, THE HOUSE APPEARS TO BE IN A LIVABLE CONDITION, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE PHOT OGRAPH WAS TAKEN FROM AN ANGLE WHICH COMPLETELY COVERS THE HOU SE OR NOT. HOWEVER, AS PER THE SALE DEED THE HOUSE COMPRISES O F GROUND FLOOR OF 1 FEET THICK WALLS AND THE FIRST FLOOR COMPRISES OF TILE ROOF OF 1600 SFT. AS THE FIRST FLOOR ITSELF IS 1600 SFT. THE TOTAL BUILT UP AREA OF THE BUILDING SHOULD BE OF CONSIDERABLY B IG. AS PER PAGE NO.9 OF THE SALE DEED DTD. 11.2.2005, THE ASSE SSEE HAS PURCHASED COMMON RIGHT OF WAY OF 12' PRIVATE ROAD F ROM HOBART ROAD TO THE BUNGALOWS OF THE VENDORS. AS PER PAGE 1 2 OF THE 5 ITA NO. 291/H/13 SMT. SEETHA CHEETI SALE DEED THE VENDORS HAVE GIVEN CONSENT FOR TRANSF ERRING ELECTRICITY SERVICE, PATTA AND HOUSE REGISTRY OF TH E BUILDING. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE HOUSE IN THE SALE DEED CLEARLY I NDICATES THAT THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT OOTY IS BUILDING FIT FOR L IVING AND ALSO NOT AS SMALL AS SECURITY ROOM AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE . THUS, THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF MORE THAN ONE HOUSE AT THE TI ME OF PURCHASE OF NEW PROPERTY'. 7.2 IN RESPONSE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S COMMENT S, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY IN OOTY CONSISTED OF 1 /4TH ACRE OF LAND ALONG WITH 130 YEARS OLD STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF ON LY ONE FLOOR AS WAS EVIDENT FROM THE PHOTOGRAPH. THE AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE AS PER THE SALE DEED ITSELF WAS RS. 2,00,000/- WHEREAS THE LAND VALUE WAS RS. 15.48 LAKHS. THE AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE WORDS FIRST FLOOR USED IN THE SALE DEED WA S A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AND THAT THE MERE USE OF THE WORD HOUSE IN TH E SALE DEED SHOULD NOT BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE SINCE IT WAS COMM ON PRACTICE TO REFER TO ANY STRUCTURE AS HOUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUATION BY THE SUB REGISTRAR. THE AR RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. ANJALI MEHRA [2007] 15 SOT 440 (MUM.) FOR THE VIEW THAT THOUGH SOME OUTHOUSE AND HUT WERE BUILT BUT SINCE THEY WERE IN DILAPIDATED CONDITION AND COULD NOT BE OCCUPIED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, IT COULD NOT BE TREATED AS A HOUSE. 7.3 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.7 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON RECORD AND THE SUBMISSIONS BOTH OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE AR. I FIND TH AT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS PREPONDERANTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. THERE ARE REPEATED REFERENCES IN THE SALE DEED WHICH GO' TO SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT THE STRUCTURE ON THE L AND IN OOTY WAS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. AT PAGE 9 OF THE SALE DEED IS A REFERENCE TO THE DISPUTED STRUCTURE AS 'BUNGALOWS', A TERM WHICH CAN ONLY REFER TO A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF CONSIDERABLE SIZE. PAGE 10 OF THE SALE DEED REFERS TO THE RIGHT OF THE VENDORS TO TAK E A PIPE CONNECTION FROM THE STORAGE TANK 'FOR DOMESTIC PURP OSE'. THIS RIGHT SHOWS THAT WATER WAS BEING INDEED USED FOR DO MESTIC PURPOSE WHICH IN TURN WOULD PRE-SUPPOSE THE HABITAT ION OF THE VENDORS OR THEIR AUTHORISED PERSONS IN A RESIDENTIA L HOUSE 6 ITA NO. 291/H/13 SMT. SEETHA CHEETI LOCATED ON THE SITE. PAGE 12 OF THE SALE DEED REFER S TO THE EXISTENCE OF AN ELECTRICITY SERVICE CONNECTION. THE EXISTENCE OF THE ELECTRICITY BOARD SERVICE CONNECTION NO. 296 IS ALSO EVIDENCED IN THE SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY. PAGE 12 OF THE SALE DEED ALSO HAS THE FOLLOWING NARRATION: 'THE PURCHASERS SHALL APPLY TO THE REVENUE AND MUN ICIPAL AUTHORITIES FOR TRANSFER OF PATTA AND HOUSE REGISTR Y IN THEIR NAME IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY HEREBY CONVEYED.' THIS AGAIN CONFIRMS THAT THERE WAS A HOUSE IN EXIST ENCE AT THE SITE. THE REFERENCE TO THE BUILDING DOOR NUMBER IN THE SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY AND THE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE BUI LDING IN ANNEXURE 1A TO THE SALE DEED GO TO ESTABLISH THAT T HERE WAS A 'RESIDENTIAL HOUSE' IN EXISTENCE AT THE SITE. EVEN IF THE AR'S PLEA THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE FIRST FLOOR IN THE ANNEXU RE 1A WAS MERELY A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR WERE TO BE ACCEPTED, THE FACT THAT THE AREA OF THE BUILDING WAS 1600 SFT. GOES TO SHOW THAT IT WAS NOT MERELY AN OUTHOUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE HOUSING OF THE S ECURITY GUARD ETC. BUT A FAIRLY LARGE STRUCTURE CAPABLE OF BEING USED AS A FULL- FLEDGED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. 5.8 THE MERE FACT THAT THE BUILDING WAS 130 YEARS O LD CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR HOLDING THAT IT WAS NO LONGER CAPABLE OF RESIDENCE. THE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUPP ORT HER PLEA THAT THE BUILDING WAS IN DILAPIDATED CONDITION INCA PABLE OF HABITATION. THE AR HAS RELIED ON A PHOTOGRAPH OF TH E BUILDING IN SUPPORT OF THE 'S PLEA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OTED THAT THE HOUSE APPEARS TO BE IN LIVABLE CONDITION FROM THE P HOTOGRAPH AND THAT IT WAS NOT- CLEAR WHETHER THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS T AKEN FROM AN ANGLE WHICH COMPLETELY COVERS, THE HOUSE OR NOT. TH E PHOTOGRAPH ITSELF SHOWS TWO LADIES STANDING AT THE ENTRANCE OF A HOUSE WITH ONE WALL OF THE HOUSE AND A CHIMNEY VISIBLE IN THE BACKGROUND. IN MY VIEW, NO CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN FROM ONE SINGL E PHOTOGRAPH WHICH SHOWS ONLY ONE VIEW OF THE HOUSE A PART FROM SHOWING ONLY A PORTION OF THE HOUSE. IT IS, THEREFO RE HELD THAT THE PROPERTY AT OOTY WAS IN THE NATURE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE WAS AN OWNER OF TWO RESIDENTIA L HOUSES ON THE DATE OF SALE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, AND THEREFO RE, NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54F. 8. LD. AR SUBMITTED SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS SUBMITTED I N THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NEVER USED THE OUTHOUSE IN THE LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE OUTHOUSE WAS 130 YEAR S OLD AND CANNOT BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE. MERELY, THE ASSESS EE IS HOLDING LAND AND THE CARETAKER OF THE LAND IS LIVING IN THAT OU THOUSE. MERELY, 7 ITA NO. 291/H/13 SMT. SEETHA CHEETI BECAUSE THE OUTHOUSE WAS USED BY CARETAKER, IT CANN OT BE TERMED AS FIT FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE. 9. LD. DR RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF AO & CIT(A). 10. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. IT IS A FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS HOLDING T WO PROPERTIES ON THE DATE OF PURCHASING THE NEW PROPERTY. THE SECOND PRO PERTY AT OOTY CONSIST OF LAND AND OUTHOUSE. WHETHER THE OUTHOUSE CAN BE TREATED AS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OR NOT, IS THE ISSUE BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THIS HOUSE CANNOT BE FIT FOR RESIDENTIA L USE AND SHE NEVER STAYED IN THAT HOUSE. AT THE SAME TIME, AO IN HIS R EMAND REPORT OPINES THAT THIS OUTHOUSE IS BIG ENOUGH HAVING 1600 SFT. AREA AND THE PHOTO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT IT IS HA BITABLE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, ASSESSEES HOUSE CAN BE REGARDED A S RESIDENTIAL ONLY WHEN IT IS LIVABLE. MERE FACT THAT THERE EXIST S SUPER STRUCTURE, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS RESIDENTIAL. WE ARE ALSO NO T IN A POSITION TO ADJUDICATE OR GIVE FINDINGS BY MERELY LOOKING AT TH E PHOTO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, ASSESSEE SHOULD SUBMI T FEW MORE PHOTOS OF THE HOUSE FROM INTERIOR PORTION TO SUBSTA NTIATE THAT IT CANNOT BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE. HENCE, WE REMIT TH IS CASE BACK TO THE AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT. THIS GROUND IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 3, RELATING TO THE DISALL OWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE ON COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY SOLD, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED EXPENSES OF R S. 4. LAKHS ON CONSTRUCTION OF BOUNDARY WALL AND GATE FOR THE LAND SOLD. HOWEVER, SHE WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE ON THE GROUN D THAT THE DETAILS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO HER AUDITOR WHO HAD PASSED AWAY AND HIS ASSISTANT HAD ALSO LEFT THE ORGANIZATION. THEREFORE , THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAID AMOUNT. 8 ITA NO. 291/H/13 SMT. SEETHA CHEETI 12. IN THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, TH E AR SUBMITTED A CONFIRMATION LETTER DTD. 30.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE B UYER OF THE PROPERTY CONFIRMING THAT THERE WAS AN EXISTING COMPOUND WALL AND GATE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE. IN HIS REMAND REPORT DTD. 6.12.20 12, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXISTENCE OF COMPOUN D WALL AND GATE WAS NOT DISPUTED, THAT THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE BUY ER DID NOT ESTABLISH THE ACTUAL INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE OR ITS REASONAB ILITY AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THA T SHE HAD ACTUALLY INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. 13. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE EITHER DURING TH E APPEAL PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO SHO W THAT FIRSTLY, SHE HAD UNDERTAKEN EXPENDITURE ON THE CLAIMED IMPRO VEMENT AND SECONDLY, THE EXPENDITURE AMOUNTED TO RS. 4 LAKHS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE MERE FACT THAT A COMPOUND WALL AN D GATE EXISTED AT THE TIME OF SALE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. HE, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 14. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS THE JOINT PROPERTY HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND. THE COST OF I MPROVEMENT WAS ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF HER HUSBAND AND DENIED IN TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. 16. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR, THE COST OF IMPR OVEMENT WAS ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND AND DENIE D IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS JOINT PROPERTY. WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THIS CASE BACK TO THE AO TO VERIFY THE ASSESS EES CLAIM AND IF IT IS PROPER, IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE ALS O. NEEDLESS TO SAY 9 ITA NO. 291/H/13 SMT. SEETHA CHEETI THAT ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD. THIS GROUND IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MARCH, 2017. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RA HMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER AC COUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED:31 ST MARCH, 2017. KV COPY TO:- 1) SMT. SEETHA CHEETI, C/O M/S MAHESH, VIRENDER & S RIRAM, CAS, 6-3-788/36 & 37A, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD. 2) ITO, WARD 6(4), HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A) - IV, HYDERABAD 4 CIT - III HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 6) GUARD FILE