Ishwar Kali, Noida V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 6417/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3232 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BEDOBANI CHAUDHURI
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNEEL AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6417/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ISHWAR KALI, A-162, SECTOR-41, NOIDA PAN: AOIPK 7197N VS. ITO, WARD-1(3), MEERUT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : MS. BEDOBANI CHAUDHURI, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI SUNEEL AGGARWAL, ADV. / DATE OF HEARING : 25/04/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28/04/2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER O F LEARNED CIT(A), MEERUT, DATED 14.09.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 12-13. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE SOLE GROUND ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RS.1,70,000/- DULY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISION OF LAW. AS PER CIT(A) ORDER, A DISTINCTION IS MADE BY HIM FOR RENOVATION AND COST OF IMPROVEMENT, DUE TO WHICH AMOUNT OF RS.1,70,000/- IS DISALLOWED, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE SAID EXPENDITURE IS IN R ESPECT OF IMPROVEMENT COST OF CONSTRUCTION, IT IS NOT AT ALL IN RESPECT OF REN OVATION. 2. THE OTHER GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, THEREFO RE, DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,70,000/- ON THE COST OF IMPROV EMENT AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE REVISED RETURN ON THE LONG TERM CA PITAL GAIN WHICH THE ASSESSEE FORGOT TO DECLARE INADVERTENTLY. THE ASSES SEE IN FACT REALIZE LATER ON ITA NO.6417/DEL/2016 2 THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS NOT BEEN DECLAR ED AND THEREFORE PAID THE TAXES DUE BUT DID NOT FILE THE REVISED RETURN. THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS REOPENED U/S.148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR INCURRING EXPENDITURE OF RS.1 LAC AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION WAS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED T HE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT PRODUCE BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND NO COGENT MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD WITH REGARD TO INCURRING OF THE EXPENDITURE ON SUCH ACCOUNT, THERE FORE, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ASSESSE E CANNOT GET THE BENEFIT OF THE SAME. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CAS E, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY 28 TH APRIL, 2017 SD/- (B.P. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28/04/2017 PRABHAT KUMAR KESARWANI, SR.P.S. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(APPEALS) 5.DR: ITAT ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI