KISAN BABURAO JADHAV, MUMBAI V. ITO RG 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2934/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3937 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SACHCHIDANAND DUBE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JM) I.T.A. NO. 2934 /MUM/ 20 1 3 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 1 0 ) SHRI KISAN BABURAO JADHAV 147 - C, VAISHALI EMPIRE ESTATE, AUGUST KRANTI MARG KEMPS CORNER MUMB AI - 400 036. VS. ITO RANGE 16(1)(1) MATRU MANDIR MUMBAI ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AAJPJ8979C ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY SHRI SACHCHIDANAND DUBE DATE OF HEARING 3 .8. 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 3 . 8 . 201 6 O R D E R PER B.R. BA SKARAN (AM) : - THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17 - 01 - 2013 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING ISSUES FOR AY 2009 - 10. (A) DISALLOWANCE OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT INCURRED ON THE LAND SOLD. (B) DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF BUSINESS EXPE NSES. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT BY REGISTERED POST ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. HENCE WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HEARD THE LD D.R AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE FIRST ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A LAND LOCATED NEAR MAHABALESHWAR AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. ACCORDINGLY HE CLAIMED THE CAPITAL GAINS AS EXEMPT. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE LAN D HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSED THE CAPITAL GAIN. BEFORE THE LD SHRI KISAN BABURAO JADHAV 2 CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A PORTION OF LAND ALONE WAS CONVERTED INTO NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE REMAINING PORTION OF LAND WAS USED FOR AG RICULTURAL PURPOSE. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED RELEVANT DETAILS AND ALSO COPIES OF RETURNS OF INCOME OF EARLIER YEARS, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE LD CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED WITH THE SAME AND ACCORDINGLY DI RECTED THE AO TO RE - COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN BY EXCLUDING THE INCOME RELATABLE TO THE PORTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED COST OF IMPROVEMENT OVER THE LAND, BUT THE LD CIT(A) DID NOT ALLOW THE SAID CLAIM ON THE REASONING THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE SAME. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED RENTAL INCOME OF RS.3,05,000/ - BY LETTING OUT A HOTEL AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE TO THE TUNE OF RS.15,53,000/ - . SINCE THE EXPENSES WERE NOT VERIFIABLE, THE AO DISALLOWED 2 0% THEREOF AND THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS CONTESTING THE DECISION RENDERED BY LD CIT(A) ON COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES, WE NOTICE THAT THEY HAVE DISALLOWED BOTH THE CLAIMS FOR WANT OF PROOF ONLY. BEFORE US ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY PROOF TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) ON BOTH THE ISSUES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3. 8 .2016 SD/ - SD/ - (AMIT SHUKLA ) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 3 / 8 / 20 1 6 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : SHRI KISAN BABURAO JADHAV 3 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI PS