Manoj Mediratta, New Delhi V. ITO ward -13(3), New Delhi

ITA 6499/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Manoj Mediratta against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, New Delhi, which sustained an addition of Rs. 30,13,432 on account of Long Term Capital Gain from the sale of a house property. The primary contention was the incorrect computation of the cost of acquisition by the Assessing Officer, who divided the cost into two instead of three, as the assessee had constructed two additional floors after purchasing the roof rights. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument, noting the need to consider the technical report by an approved valuer and directed a re-assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 108656 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: AllowedAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Set aside

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 6499/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”; NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIKUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6499 /DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manoj Mediratta, A-l 1, First Floor, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 PAN- AAMPM9302R Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-13(3), New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri P.K. Chadda, CA Department represented by Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 26.04.2023 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER KUL BHARAT. JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, New Delhi, dated 31.05.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Learned Commissioner o f Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition o f Rs. 30,13,432.00 on account o f Long Term Capital Gain on sale o f House Property by rejecting the cost o f acquisition as submitted by the appellant and also disallowing commission paid I ITA No. 6499/Del/2019 ^ 2. That the order of the Learned Commissioner o f Income Tax (Appeals) sustaining the addition o f Rs. 30,13,432.00 on account o f Long Term Capital Gain on sale o f House Property is based a mere surmises and assumptions and without proper appreciation of the facts o f the case & law and, more particularly, the appellants submission in this regards. 3. That it is humbly prayed to delete the addition o f Rs. 30,13,432.00 on account o f Long Term Capital Gain on sale o f House Property as sustained by the learned Commissioner o f Income Tax (Appeals). 4. That the order o f the Learned Commissioner o f Income Tax (Appeals) sustaining the addition o f Rs. 30,13,432.00 on account o f Long Term Capital Gain on sale ofHouse Property is bad in law & facts o f the case. 5. That the Appellant may please be permitted to add, delete or vary any grounds o f appeal. 2. The only effective ground in this appeal is against sustaining the addition of Rs. 30,13,432/- on account of long term capital gain on sale of house property. 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case the assessee filed his return of income disclosing income of Rs. 19,25,250/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason of low closing stock shown in the P&L a/c as compared to the preceding year. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee during the year under consideration sold an immovable property E-262, 3rd Floor, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi on a sale consideration of Rs. 41,25,000/-. However, the assessee had' purchased roof of the first floor up to sky in the said property on 31.5,1999 for a consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/-, Therefore, the Assessing Officer computed long 3 ITA No. 6499/Del/2019 term capital gain at Rs. 30,13,432/- and assessed income at Rs. 49,38,684/-. purchased roof of the first floor for Rs. 8,00,000/-, constructed two more floors, therefore, the average value towards cost of acquisition has to be divided into three, whereas the assessee has taken as divided into two. Aggrieved against this the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities below failed to appreciate the fact in right perspective and submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to give set off of cost of acquisition and the learned CIT(Appeals) grossly erred in directing division into three. However, both the authorities have admitted the fact that there was construction of two floors and out of two floors one floor was sold. He also placed on record a technical report dated 25.4.2023 i.e. valuation of the cost of construction of the property in question. He submitted that the authorities be directed to set off the cost of acquisition as claimed by the assessee. 5. On the other hand, learned DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions held that assessee had 4 ITA No. 6499/Del/2019 6. We have heard rival submissions, perused the material on record. We find that the learned CIT(Appeals) has decided the issue by observing as under: “6.6 First o f all, it is not clear that what qualification is there o f these architects. Further, the stamp in the report is put for Gyanendra Singh Bamore with CA/2012/54679 having address at Surana Bhawan, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi - 110092. It is not clear in what capacity he has signed. Further, it is observed from the report that it is an estimate, which appears to be without actual inspection of property because the same is sold almost 3 years ago. Further, in this estimate they have also included for termite proof treatment, electrical works, POP false ceiling, painting of wall roofs, wooden cupboards in kitchen and rooms, which is not in nature of construction but maintenance and renovation. Therefore, appellant failed to provide the source o f expenditure or any proof for such expenditure actually incurred. Thus, this report will also have no use to the appellant. 6.7 Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances o f this case and in law, as per the discussions held in the foregoing paragraphs, the appellant has not been able to substantiate the cost o f construction and hence the addition is sustained and appeal is dismissed on these grounds. ” 7. However, it is an admitted that that the assessee had sold a floor which was constructed based on construction of the roof rights in property. In our considered view the authorities below ought to have given the benefit of cost of acquisition to' the assessee. During the course of hearing the assessee has also filed a technical report by the approved valuer. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and to sub-serve the substantive justice, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the assessing authority to decide it afresh after considering the submissions 5 ITA No. 6499/Del/2019 and the report of approved valuer submitted by the assessee. Grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT Sd/ Sd/ (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (KUU BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI