Smt. Padma Bai Jain, Khandwa V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 , Khandwa

ITA 429/Ind/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7623 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PUNEET KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA A RS
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 142(1); 143(2); 22; 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.429/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 APPELLANT BY SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, & N.D. PATWA , ARS REVENUE BY SHRI PUNEET KUMAR SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 22 .01.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 .01.2020 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE IS PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- II (IN SHORT LD.CIT], INDORE, DATED 22.01.2018 WHICH IS ARISIN G OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 147/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 16.09.2016 FRAMED BY ITO-1, KHANDWA. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1) ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEAR NED CIT SMT. PADMA BAI JAIN, KHANDWA VS. ITO, WARD - 1 KHANDWA (APPELLANT) (REVENUE ) PAN NO. BAJPB5264M ITANO.429/IND/2018 STM PADMA BAI JAIN 2 (A)- II, INDORE ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS4,68,132 ON RENOVATION BY STATING THAT THE HUGE AMOUNT OF RS.L, 10,OOO WERE PAID TO CONTRACTOR IN F.Y.1990-91 FOR WHICH NO PROOF BEFORE THE LEARNED A.O. WAS SUBMITTED AND THE CONTR ACTOR SHOWING INCOME OF RS.2800 PER MONTH AS WAGES IN RAT ION-CARD AND THUS DISBELIEVED THE EXPENSES ON RENOVATION WHI CH IS WRONG, ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2) THE LEARNED CIT (A)-II, INDORE FAILED TO SEE- A) THAT THE HOUSE BEING THREE STORIED PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OLD CONSTRUCTION AND REQUIRE RENOVATION AND THU S EXPENDITURE WERE INCURRED. B) THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAS ADMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED ITO- I, KHANDWA REGARDING WORK OF RENOVATION COMPLETED BY H IM DURING F.Y.1990-91. C) THAT THE PERSONAL DETAILS OF CONTRACTOR IS NOT R ELEVANT TO THE APPELLANT AS HE HAS COMPLETED THE RENOVATION WORK. 3) THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR THE RELIEF. 4) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION SUSTAI NED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A)-II, INDORE WERE EXCESSIVE. 5) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND A NY GROUND OF APPEAL AS AND WHEN NECESSITY OR OCCASION ARISES. 3. BRIEF FACTS IS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS RELAT ING TO THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVI DUAL. NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESS MENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WAS DULY SERVED. IN COMPLIAN CE THERETO SHE FILED RETURN ON 31.03.2016 SHOWING INCOME AT RS.8,8 5,781/-. NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE DULY SE RVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.8,85, 781/- UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IN COMPUTING THE CAPIT AL GAIN ASSESSEE CLAIMED INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT AT RS. 4,68,132/-. THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DECLINED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FOR ITANO.429/IND/2018 STM PADMA BAI JAIN 3 NON-SUBMISSION OF BILLS AND DOCUMENTS IN ORDER TO S UPPORT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RS.1,00,000/- INCURRED FOR REPAI R AND OTHER WORK DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 1990-91. ALONG WITH DISALLOWA NCE OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON RENOVATION OF HOUSE AT RS.4,68,132/-, V ARIOUS OTHER ADDITIONS WERE ALSO MADE ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS .73,59,910/-. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ADDITIONS, ASSESSEE CAME IN A PPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND PARTLY SUCCEEDED. HOWEVER, THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO GET ANY RELIEF FOR THE ADDITION OF RS.4,68,132/-. 5. NOW ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AG AINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS.4 ,68,132/-. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED R EFERRING TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND PAPER BOOK RUNNING FROM PAG ES 1 TO 19. 7. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED IN GROUND NO.1 TO 4 ARE AGAINST THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM FOR INDEXED COST OF IMPRO VEMENT OF RS.4,68,132/-. WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SE NIOR CITIZEN, AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS. SHE PURCHASED PLOT OF LAND IN 1973 ON WHICH RESIDENTIAL HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED. THEREAFTER, REPAI R & RENOVATION WORK WAS DONE DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 1990-91. SHE CL AIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED RS.1,00,000/- TOWARDS COST OF IMPROVE MENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FOR THE WORK RELATING TO CONSTRUC TION OF TOILET, ITANO.429/IND/2018 STM PADMA BAI JAIN 4 BATHROOM, PIPELINE FITTING, TILE FIXATION AND PLAST ERING OF ROOMS. SHE ENGAGED A CONTRACTOR MR. MANOHAR FOR DONG THIS WORK . THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE CONTRACTOR MR. MANOHAR IS PLACED ON RECORD. HIS STATEMENT WAS ALSO TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE WHOM HE CONFIRMED TO HAVE CARRIED OUT THE AFORESAID WORK OF CONSTRUCT ION AND REPAIR FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,00,000/-. THIS FACTS STANDS UN-REBUTTED. 9. WE, THEREFORE, LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AGED ABOU T 90 YEARS HAVING ACCUMULATED PART SAVINGS, AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE CONTR ACTOR AND HIS STATEMENT SUPPORTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, FIN D NO REASON TO DENY THE CLAIM OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS.1,00,00 0/- DURING F.Y. 1990-91. THUS, BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF RS. 4,68,132/-. WE ACCORDINGLY DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.4,68,132/- AND ALLOW GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. GROUND NO.5 IS GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.01.20 20. SD/- SD/- ( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATED : 29 TH JANUARY, 2020 ITANO.429/IND/2018 STM PADMA BAI JAIN 5 PATEL/PS COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE