Ruby Touch Infrstructure Private Limited, NAGPUR V. ACIT Circle -II, NAGPUR

ITA 323/NAG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0015 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 37; 250

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण Ɋायपीठ नागपुर मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH : : NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING AT PUNE] BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.323/NAG/2019 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ruby Touch Infrastructure Private Limited, 8, Laxmi Anjuman Building Sadar, Nagpur – 440001. PAN: AADCR7138N V s The ACIT, Circle-II, Nagpur. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Rishi Kumar Bisen – DR Date of hearing 28/08/2023 Date of pronouncement 13/11/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Nagpur on 29.08.2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14. The grounds of appeal are as under : “1. That the lower Authorities grossly erred in Law and facts in disallowing and maintaining expenditure of Rs.462453/-, Paid to Nagpur Improvement Trust being “Additional Regulrisitation Charges” at the time of Registration of Sale Deed “ Purchase Title Deed: in as much as due evidence was produced during the course ITA No.323/NAG/2019 Ruby Touch Infrastructure Private Limited [A] 2 of Assessment proceedings. The Payment was made at the time of registration during F.Y.2010-11 which was added to the cost of property which was sold during F.Y.2012-13. The claim of Expenditure be allowed. 2. That without prejudice to above it is respectfully submitted that payment was made during F.Y.2010-11 in respect to property sold during F.Y.2012-13. The claim ought to have been allowed.” 2. At the outset of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment letter was filed on behalf of assessee. 3. We heard the ld.Departmental Representative of the Revenue virtually and perused the records. Findings &Analysis : 4. There is only one issue. The assessee had claimed expenditure of Rs.4,62,453/- under section 37 of the Act on account of payment made to Nagpur Improvement Trust. This fact is evident from the ground of appeal raised by the assessee before ld.CIT(A). The said ground is reproduced as under : ITA No.323/NAG/2019 Ruby Touch Infrastructure Private Limited [A] 3 5. The ld.Assessing Officer(AO) disallowed assessee’s claim of expenditure of Rs.4,52,453/- under section 37 of the Act. Assessing Officer stated that said amount was paid on 07.07.2010. Also the receipt issued by Nagpur Improvement Trust was in the name of Arvind Ladhe. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance as it pertains to earlier financial year and assessee is a company following mercantile system of accounting. 5.1 Before us, the assessee has taken a plea in the grounds of appeal that the amount was paid to Nagpur Improvement Trust in F.Y.2010-11 when assessee had purchased the property and it has been claimed as cost of property when assessee has sold the property in F.Y.2012-13. 5.2 However, no evidence has been filed by assessee before us to demonstrate that it has been claimed as cost of property at the time of sale of property. Rather it is observed that assessee had claimed it as expenses under section 37 of the Act as seen from the Grounds of Appeal raised before the ld.CIT(A). The AO has also disallowed the claim under section 37 of the Act. Therefore, the claim made by the assessee before us is not ITA No.323/NAG/2019 Ruby Touch Infrastructure Private Limited [A] 4 supported by any evidence and it is contrary to assessee’s claim before the ld.CIT(A) and AO. It is a fact that the expenditure was not incurred in A.Y.2013-14. It is also a fact that the receipt is in the name of Arvind Ladhe. It means the expenditure was not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of assessee. Even if we presume for argument sake, that it was part of cost of the property at the time of acquisition of property, then also the receipt is in the name of Arvind Ladhe who had sold the property to the assessee. Thus, it was liability of Mr.Arvind Ladhe. Therefore, it cannot be cost of improvement or cost of acquisition for the assessee. 6. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we confirm the addition of Rs.4,62,453/- made by AO under section 37 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No.1 & 2 of the assessee are dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13 th Nov, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.GODARA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 13 th November, 2023/ SGR* ITA No.323/NAG/2019 Ruby Touch Infrastructure Private Limited [A] 5 आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, नागपुर बᱶच, नागपुर/ DR, ITAT, Bench, Nagpur. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.