Mool Raj Gupta (Deceased), Amritsar. V. Income Tax Officer, Amritsar.

ITA 553/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7744 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL DHAWANLD
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA LD
• Keywords: Onus to prove
• Section: 234B; 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.553(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:200 6-07 MOOL RAJ GUPTA (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SMT. NEERAJ GUPTA, JATINDER MAHAJAN & VIVEK MAHAJAN 355-E, THE MALL, OPP SARDAR HATI, AMRITSAR. PAN:AAQPG-6384F VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5 (3), AMRITSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. P. N. ARORA (LD. ADV) RESPONDENT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN (LD. D.R) DATE OF HEARING: 13.09.2017. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.10.2017 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.09.201 6 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-2, AMRITSAR, FOR ASST. YEAR:2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ARE BOTH AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND A RE UNTENABLE IN LAW. 2. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE F ACTS OF THE CASE AND MERELY RELIED ON ORDER OF THE AO AND WITHOUT ANY RH YME & REASON, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. AS SUCH THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO CANCELLED. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER MISERABLY FAILED T O APPRECIATE THAT A SUM OF RS.495000/- WAS GIVEN TO SH. KEWAL KRISHAN GUPTA AN D HE HAS DULY ADMITTED THIS FACT. SH. KEWAL KRISHAN GUPTA HAS ALSO ADMITTED THI S FACT BEFORE THE AO. SH. KEWAL KRISHAN GUPTA WAS PAID ON ACCOUNT OF RENOVATI ON OF OLD BUILDING. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD FOR JUSTIFYING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.553 (ASR)/2016 ASST. YEAR :2006-07 2 4. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT APPRECI ATE THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY THROUGH PAYEES ACCOUNT CHE QUE AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN DULY ADMITTED BY SH. KEWAL KRISHAN GUPTA. IN VIEW O F THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION OF RS.500000/- CONFIRMED BY THE WORTHY CIT (A) IS NOT CALLED FOR AND THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. 5. THAT AGAIN THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,31,906/- ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIR AND RENOVATI ON OF THE PROPERTY. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THIS WAS AN OLD MATTER AND THE AMOUNT WAS SPENT ON THE REPAIR AND RENOVATION OF THE SAID OLD BUILDING. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT NECESSARY PROOF WAS F ILED IN THE SHAPE OF CERTIFICATE OF ARCHITECT. IT IS RELEVANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE AO IF AT ALL WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SAME HE COULD HAVE SUMMONED THE ARCHITECT U/S 1 31 FOR ENQUIRING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE FACTS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A FFIDAVIT BEFORE THE AO WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF DECISION OF SU PREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF MEHTA PARIKH & CO. REPORTED IN 30 (TR 181. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ORIGINAL BILLS WERE ALSO STOLEN ALONG-WITH THE OTHER ROBBERY. THUS THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF RS.103190 6/- ON ACCOUNT OF RENOVATION OF THE SAID DEPILATED PROPERTY WHICH WAS VERY OLD O NE AND REQUIRED LOT OF REPAIR SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. 6. AGAIN THE WORTHY CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO THEREIN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C. THE INTEREST CHARGED IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME MAY BE CANCELLED. ALTERNATIV ELY THE INTEREST CHARGED IS VERY HIGH & EXCESSIVE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.1,82,480/- ON 28.03.2007 WHICH WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT CO-OPERATE AND FILED INSUFFICIENT INFORMATI ON. THE ISSUE OF NON-COOPERATION BY THE ASSESSEE WAS INCORP ORATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CO- OPERATE AND PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT WAS MADE U/S 281 B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE PREF ERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), NON-COOPERATIVE A TTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS ALSO DISMISSED IN LIMINE AS WELL AS ON MERITS V IDE ORDER DATED 12.11.2012 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, ITA NO.553 (ASR)/2016 ASST. YEAR :2006-07 3 IT WAS ALSO DISMISSED ON 18.03.2013 ON NON-PROSECUT ION BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT LATER ON RECALLING THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.09.2014, SET ASIDE THE CASE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR EXAMINING TWO ISSUES: (I) ISSUE OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS.10.31,906/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAIN, BEING THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT INCURRE D BY THE APPELLANT IN THE PROPERTY SOLD. (II) ISSUE OF COST OF RENOVATION/IMPROVEMENT OF RS.4,95, 000/- OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE FOUND THE SAME AS UN-ACCEPTABLE AS IN SPITE OF PROVIDING VARIOU S OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCE REGARDING COST OF RENOVATION INCURRED AT RS.10, 31,906/- AND COULD ONLY FURNISH THE COPY OF QUOTATION OF ESTIMATED E XPENDITURE (SELF SERVING DOCUMENT), THE SAME QUOTATION HAS ALREADY BEEN FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND ALSO AT THE TI ME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND HAD BEEN CONSIDERED AND FOUND UN- ACCEPTABLE AT THAT TIME ALSO. MERE FURNISHING OF QUOTAT ION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE ACTUAL RENOVATION WAS MAD E AND THE AMOUNT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SPENT. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FUR NISH THE BILLS REGARDING MATERIAL OR LABOUR ON ANY OTHER PROO F TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT IS VERY INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE ESTIMATED QUOTATION EXPE NDITURE HAS BEEN MADE EXACTLY OF THE SAME AMOUNT THAT TOO NOT ROUND OF F AMOUNT. IT IS WELL HELD IN CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC) THAT WHERE A PARTY IS RELYING UPON SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS, I T IS FOR THE PARTY TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH. FURTHER IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO.553 (ASR)/2016 ASST. YEAR :2006-07 4 FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS BURDEN OF PROOF, THEREFORE, T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING COST OF IMPROVEMENT/RENOVATION EXPENSES AT RS.10,31,906/- WAS REJECTED AND ADDED INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER WITH REGARD TO ISSUES OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,0 0,000/-, IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN I NCURRED FOR RENOVATION ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BY SH. KE WAL KRISHAN GUPTA, HOWEVER, SH. KEWAL KRISHAN GUPTA WAS CALLED U PON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED U/S 131 OF T HE I.T. ACT IN WHICH HE SPECIFICALLY SUBMITTED THAT VERY PETTY RE NOVATION WAS MADE AND WHITEWASH WAS GOT DONE AND APPROXIMATELY 90- 95 THOUSAND WAS SPENT ON RENOVATION AND SPECIFIC ENQUIRY BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WITH REGARD TO FURNISH THE DETAIL OF MAJOR CONSTRUCTION MADE, IT WAS REPLIED BY SH. KEWAL KRISHAN GUPTA THAT HE HAS NOT M ADE ANY SUCH HUGE EXPENDITURE ON RENOVATION WHICH COSTS MORE THAN 1 LAC. THEREFORE, ON THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSING OFFI CER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE QUA EXPENSES OF RS.5,00, 000/- WITH REGARD TO THE RENOVATION OF HOUSE. 4. ON DISSATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE CA RRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO ALTHOUGH GIVEN PARTLY RELIEF BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- OUT OF RS.5,00 ,000/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RENOVATION OF THE HOUSE. 5. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THIS BE NCH AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE SUBMITTED THAT WORTHY CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND MERELY RELIED ON ORDER OF TH E AO AND WITHOUT ANY RHYME & REASON, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE A DDITION. AS SUCH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND IS L IABLE TO CANCELLED. ITA NO.553 (ASR)/2016 ASST. YEAR :2006-07 5 FURTHER THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE LD. CIT(A) MISERABLY F AILED TO APPRECIATE THAT A SUM OF RS.4,95,000/- WAS GIVEN TO SH. KEWAL KRISHAN GUPTA FOR RENOVATION OF OLD BUILDING. THE AU THORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD FOR NULLIFYI NG THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQ UES AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN DULY ADMITTED BY SH. KEWAL KRISH AN GUPTA. IN VIEW OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- CONFIRMED BY THE WORTHY CIT(A) IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE WORTH Y CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,31 ,906/- ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIR AND RENOVATION OF THE PROPERTY. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THIS WAS AN OLD PROPERTY AND THE AMOUNT WAS SPENT ON THE REPAIR AND RENOVATION OF THE SAID OLD BU ILDING. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT NECESSARY PROO F WAS FILED IN THE SHAPE OF CERTIFICATE OF ARCHITECT. IT IS RELEVANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE AO IF AT ALL WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SAME HE COULD HA VE SUMMONED THE ARCHITECT U/S 131 FOR ENQUIRING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE FACTS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE AO WHICH SHOULD H AVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF DECISION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF MEHTA PARIKH & CO. REPORTED IN 30 ITR 181. IT WAS AL SO EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ORIGINAL BILLS WERE ALSO STOLEN ALONG-WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS IN THE ROBBERY. THUS THE AM OUNT OF RS.10,31,906/- ON ACCOUNT OF RENOVATION OF THE SAID DEP ILATED PROPERTY WHICH WAS VERY OLD ONE AND REQUIRED LOT OF REPAIRS SHOU LD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. ITA NO.553 (ASR)/2016 ASST. YEAR :2006-07 6 FURTHER THE WORTHY CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ING THE ORDER OF THE AO THEREIN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A, 23 4B AND 234C. THE INTEREST CHARGED IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME MAY B E CANCELLED. ALTERNATIVELY THE INTEREST CHARGED IS VERY HIGH & EXCESSI VE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. GROUND NOS.1,2,& 7 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE, DO N OT REQUIRE SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. GROUND NO.3 & 4 ARE CONNECTED WITH EACH OTHER, THEREFO RE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY TAKEN TOGETHER. LET US TO PERUSE THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A) . DECISION:- DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE SH KEWAL KRISHAN GUPTA OR TO FU RNISH HIS COMPLETE ADDRESS REGARDING RENOVATION EXPENDITURE OF RS.495, 000/-. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 131(L) TO SH. KEWAL KISHORE GUPTA S/O SH RI MUNISH RAM GUPTA. IN RESPONSE SH KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA ATTENDED AND HIS ST ATEMENT WAS RECORDED BY THE AO WHEREIN IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 4 HE ADMITTED HAVING MADE EXPENDITURE ON RENOVATION OF THE HOUSE BUT COULD NOT RECALL THE AMOUNT SPENT ON RENOVATION. HE STATED THAT RENOVATION WAS DONE BEFORE THE TRANSACTION PROPERTY TOOK PLACE . IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 7 SH KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA STATED THAT VERY PETTY RENOVATION WAS MADE AND WHITE WASHING ETC WAS GOT D ONE AND ABOUT RS 90-95 THOUSAND WAS SPENT ON RENOVATION. IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 8 SH. KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA ADMITTED THAT HE HAD NOT MADE ANY HUGE EXPENDITURE ON RENOVATION WHICH COST MORE THAN RS. 1,00,000 /-. THE RENOVATION WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE AROELLANT THROUGH SH KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA, AND THEREFORE THE - . I HAD RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SH KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA U/S 131 (1) OF THE ACT. IN HIS STATEMENT SH KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA HAD ADMITTED TO HAVE CONDUCT ED THE RENOVATION WORK ON THE HOUSE OF THE APPELLANT UNDER CONSIDERATION B UT IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 8, HE HAD ADMITTED THAT HE HAD NOT MADE ANY HUG E EXPENDITURE ON RENOVATION WHICH COST MORE THAN RS.100,000/-. ITA NO.553 (ASR)/2016 ASST. YEAR :2006-07 7 ACCORDINGLY IT IS HELD THAT SH KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA HAD CONDUCTED RENOVATION OF RS.1,00,000/- ONLY ON THE HOUSE OF TH E APPELLANT WHOSE CREDIT IS ALLOWED AND ADDITION OF RS1,00,000/- IS DELETED. HO WEVER, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT ESTABLISH HAVING SPENT THE BALANCE SUM OF RS.4,00,000/- ON THE RENOVATION OF HIS HOUSE, AND THE BALANCE ADDITION O F RS.4,00,000/- IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED. WE HAVE GIVE OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION INDEPENDENT LY TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW, AS IT IS TRITE TO SAY THAT OCULAR EVIDENCE HAVING MORE IMPORTANT THEN THE OTHER EVIDENCE AND OCULAR EVIDENCE IS A DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CANNOT BE SIDELINED. WHILE COMING TO THE INSTANT CASE, TH E ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SPENT RS.5 LACS FOR THE RENOVATI ON OF HOUSE SH. KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA, WHO HAVE CATEGORICALLY STATED U/S 131 OF THE I.T. ACT THAT VERY PETTY RENOVATION WAS MADE AND WHITE WASHING ETC. WAS GOT DONE AND ABOUT RS.90-95 THOUSAND WAS SPENT ON RENOVATION AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SPECIFIC QUESTION WITH REGARD TO FURNISHING THE DETAILS OF MAJOR CONSTRUCTION MADE, IF AN Y, WHICH COST BEYOND MORE THAN 2-3 LACS ON WHICH SH. KAMAL KISHORE GU PTA REPLIED NO, I HAVE NOT MADE ANY SUCH HUGE EXPENDITURE ON RENO VATION WHICH COST MORE THAN 1 LAC. ALTHOUGH, THE LD. AR RELIED UPO N THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,000/-RS.1,45,000/- & RS.1,50,000/- VIDE CHEQUE S NO.407807, 396971, AND 39690 ON DATED 8.12.2005, 18.08.2005 AN D 15.10.2005 RESPECTIVELY, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO PROVE BY BRINGING ON RECORD ANY SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE ONCE THERE IS OCULAR EVIDENCE WHICH IS DIRECT CANNOT BE SIDE LINED AS SH. KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA SPECIFICALLY ADMITTED BEFORE THE A.O U/S 131 OF THE ACT THAT HE HAS NOT MADE ANY SUCH HUGE EXPEN DITURE OF RENOVATION WHICH COST MORE THAN 1 LAC. CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SH. KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA HAVING BEEN ADMITTED TO RECEIVE RS.5,00,000/- BY CHEQUE DOE S NOT SOUND GOOD IN VIEW OF SPECIFIC REPLY OF THE SAID PERSON BEFORE A.O. CONTENTION TO AO TO THE EFFECT THAT STATEMENT OF MR. GUPTA CAN N OT BE RELIED IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE AS NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINATION WA S GIVEN. ITA NO.553 (ASR)/2016 ASST. YEAR :2006-07 8 WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SH. GUPTA HAS NO T GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND HE ONLY CLARIFIED TO HA VE CARRIED OUT RENOVATION TO ITS REAL FACTS WHICH IN FACT SUPPORTS THE A SSESSEE CASE. EVEN THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING EVERY LIBERTY TO BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY SUBSTANTIAL MATERIAL AND WITNESS TO DISPROVE THE STATEME NT OF SH. GUPTA WHICH THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY FAILED. ON THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE VAGUE SUBMISSIONS A ND ALLEGATIONS AND IN FACT PRIMAFACIE FAILED TO ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM BY PRODUCING ANY SUBSTANTIVE AND/OR CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL AS THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE CREATES MANY DOUBTS ABOUT THE DA TE OF THE PURCHASE OF THE HOUSE, ACTUAL CONDITION OF THE HOUSE, AT THAT TIME, AND RENOVATION CARRIED OUT IN THE HOUSE AND IN ALL HUMAN PROBABILITIES IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO OUR CONSCIOUS MIND THAT WHILE PURCHASING A HOUSE ON CONSIDERATION OF RS.6,54,000/- WHY THE PERSON WILL GIVE RS.4.95,000/- FOR RENOVATION TO THE ERSTWHILE OWNER. EVEN OTHERWISE NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WITH REGARD TO THE RENOVATION WORKS DONE PRE VIOUSLY AND LATER STAGE OF THE HOUSE WAS EVER FILED BEFORE THE AUT HORITIES BELOW OR BEFORE US. ON THE AFORESAID CONSIDERATION, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY HE SITATION TO HOLD THAT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE IN HAND. NOW COMING TO GROUND NO.5. LET US TO PERUSE THE CONCLU SION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A). DECISION: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT HAD MADE OUT A CASE THAT THE INTERALIA, ORIGINAL BILLS OF THE RENOVATION EXPENSES CLAIMED A T RS.10,31,906/- WERE STOLEN DURING THE THEFT AND FILED THE COPY OF THE F IR DATED 14.07.08 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. FOR THIS REASON THE BILLS COU LD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT RELIED UPON THE CERTIFICATE FROM ARCHITECT WHOSE COPY WAS SUBMITTED IN THE PAPER BOOK. ITA NO.553 (ASR)/2016 ASST. YEAR :2006-07 9 HOWEVER THE PERUSAL OF THE WORKING OF THE ARCHITECT GIVEN ON PAGE 14 TO 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK REVEALS THAT THE SAID RE PORT OF THE ARCHITECT DATED 26-06-1999 WAS ONLY A QUOTATION FOR RENOVATION WORK AT BUILDING KNOWN AS HOTEL PEGASUS, OPP. RAILWAY STATI ON, AMRITSAR BELONGING TO SH. MOOL RAJ GUPTA AND WHICH WAS VALUE D AT RS.10,31,906/-. THE SAID QUOTATION DATED 26-06-1999 IS NOT AN EVIDE NCE OF THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON RENOVATION WORK OF THE HOTE L WHICH WAS CARRIED OUT MUCH LATER BY THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY THE SA ID QUOTATION OF THE ARCHITECT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS AN EVIDENCE OF RENO VATION EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT AND IS DISMISSED. IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF BILLS OF MATERIAL AND LABOUR OR ANY OTHER PROOF OF HAVING INCURRED RENOVA TION EXPENDITURE ON THE HOTEL BUILDING BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE AO O R BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT OF RENOVATION EXPENDITURE OF RS.10,31,906/- AND THE AD DITION OF RS.10,31,906/- IS CONFIRMED. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE INSTANT CASE FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE QUA RENOVATIO N EXPENSES CLAIMED AT RS.10,31,906/- IT WAS EMPHASIZED BY T HE ASSESSEE THAT THEFT WAS TAKEN PLACE IN THE HOTEL PREMISES I.E., HOTEL PEGASUS, OPP. RAILWAY STATION, BUILDING AT 161/XIV-2, KHASRA NO.84 , G.T. ROAD, AMRITSAR. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE QUOT ATION DATED 26.06.1999 TO THE TUNE OF RS.10,31,906/-. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES FATHER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 1999 IN DE PILATED CONDITION WHICH REQUIRED REPAIR AND RENOVATION TO RU N THE BUSINESS AND ACCORDINGLY A SUM OF RS.10,31,906/- WAS SPENT ON REPAIR A ND RENOVATION OF THE SAID PROPERTY AND NECESSARY PROOF WA S DULY FILED IN THE SHAPE OF CERTIFICATE FROM ARCHITECT. WE REALIZED FROM THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD TH AT NOWHERE IT WAS SPECIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHEN THE REN OVATION OF HOTEL AND FROM WHOM THE SAME WAS DONE. THE ASSESSEE ONLY RELIED UPON THE QUOTATION DATED 26.06.1999 WHICH WAS REJECTE D BY REVENUE ITA NO.553 (ASR)/2016 ASST. YEAR :2006-07 10 AUTHORITIES BY HOLDING THAT THE SAID QUOTATION IS NOT AN EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON RENOVATION WORKS IN THE HOTEL WHICH WAS CARRIED OUT MUCH LATER BY THE APPELLANT. SPECIFICAL LY IN THE ABSENCE OF THE BILLS OF MATERIAL AND LABOUR OR ANY PROOF OF HAVING INCURRED RENOVATION EXPENDITURE ON THE HOTEL BUILDING BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE A.O OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. CIT(A) WA S JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT OF RENOVATION OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.10,31,906/-. WE REALIZED THAT EVEN IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ESTIMATED QUOTATION EXPENDITURE HA S BEEN MADE EXACTLY OF THE SAME AMOUNT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE QUA RENOVATION THAT TOO EXACT AMOUNT AND FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT IS WELL SETTLED HELD IN CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE (1971) 82 IT R 540(SC) THAT WHERE A PARTY RELIED ON SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS, IT IS FOR THE PARTY TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON TWO DOCUME NTS (I) QUOTATION WHICH UNDOUBTEDLY SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS AND ( II) THE POLICE REPORT, IN WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT THE NAMED PERSON CRI MINALLY TRESPASSED INTO THE HOTEL PREMISES BY BREAKING OPEN THE LOCK OF THE MAIN GATE OF THE HOTEL AND FORCIBLY AND ILLEGALLY EN TERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE HOTEL AND STOLEN AND TAKEN AWAY ALL THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDING INCOME TAX FILE AND OTHER IMPORTANT RECORDS. WE HAVE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE ALON GWITH HIS MOTHER HAD SHOWN TO BE LICENSEE/TENANT OF HIS FATHER , ONCE HIS FATHER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY ON 29 TH APRIL, 1999. FROM THE COMPLAINT, IT REFLECTS THAT ASSESSEES FATHER HAD PURCHASED THE HOTEL O N 29.04.1999 AND THEREFORE SOLD THE SAME ON 04.04.2005 TO SH. MAKHTOOL SINGH AND OTHER PERSONS AND TILL DATE THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED TO BE THE TENANT OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THIS CASE PERTAINS T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 WHICH MEANS FINANCIAL YEAR: 2005- 06 AND ITA NO.553 (ASR)/2016 ASST. YEAR :2006-07 11 FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE SAID PROPERTY ON 04.04.2 005, HOWEVER, IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING THE EXPENDITURE ON RE NOVATION TO BE CARRIED OUT IN THE F.Y. 2005-06 WHICH AT ALL, DOES NOT SEEMS TO BE TRUE. IT IS ALSO AGAINST HUMAN PROBABILITIES THAT THE Q UOTATION DATED 26.06.1999 REFLECTS THE AMOUNT OF RS.10,31,906/-, HOW EVER, THE RENOVATION ALLEGED TO BE CARRIED ON LATER ON AFTER M ANY YEARS, WHICH HAVE BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE EXACTLY AS OF QUOTATION AMOUNT WHICH CREATES MANY DOUBTS FOR ITS AUTHENTICITY. FURTHER, WE HAVE TO OBSERVE THAT IN THE EVIDENCE ACT, THERE IS A PROVISION T O PROVE THE FACTS BY ADDUCING SECONDARY EVIDENCE, IF PRIMARILY IS NOT AVAI LABLE AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS BASED HIS CASE UPON THE THEFT TA KEN PLACE AT THE HOTEL PREMISES, HOWEVER, WE HAVE FAILED T O UNDERSTAND AS TO WHAT STOPPED THE ASSESSEE TO BROUGHT ON RECORD OR TO C ALL UPON THE RECORDS OF RAW MATERIAL SUPPLIER, CONTRACTOR, LABOURS AND LABOUR WAGES EXPENSES IF INCURRED IF ANY. WE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE GOT VARIOUS OPPORT UNITIES IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM, HOW EVER, UNDISPUTEDLY FAILED TO ESTABLISH. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERE D OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION BY LOGIC AND WELL REASONING AND THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. GROUND NO.6 WITH REGARD TO THE CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C AS THE CHARGES OF INTEREST IS STATUTORY IN NATUR E AND HENCE, DOES NOT REQUIRED TO BE INTERFERED WITH. ITA NO.553 (ASR)/2016 ASST. YEAR :2006-07 12 FINALLY WE CAN SAY IT EASILY THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT SUFFER FROM PERVERSITY, ILLEGALITY AN D IMPROPRIETY, HENCE THE SAME IS UPHELD. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.10.2017. SD/- SD/- (T. S. KAPOOR) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:31.10.2017. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER