Smt. Bhavnaben K.Patel, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Circle-9, Ahmedabad

ITA 860/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80318 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KULSHRESTHA SR DR
• Assessee Lawyers: M G PATEL

Judgement Text

, , , , A, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, A BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.860/AHD/2011 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2006-2007] SMT. BHAVNIBEN K. PATEL OFFICE NO.3 & 4 FIRST FLOOR, HASUBHAI CHAMBERS NR. TOWN HALL, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD. PAN : ABEPP 8958 K /VS. ACIT, CIR.9 AHMEDABAD. ( (( ( -. -.-. -. / APPELLANT) ( (( (/0-. /0-. /0-. /0-. / RESPONDENT) 1& 2 3 )/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.G. PATEL + 2 3 )/ REVENUE BY : SHRI B. KULSHRESTHA, SR.DR 5 2 &(*/ DATE OF HEARING : 25 TH AUGUST, 2014 678 2 &(*/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/09/2014 )9 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2006-2007 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A). 2. THE ONLY GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XV , AHMEDABAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO OF NOT CONSIDERING IMPROVEMENT COS T OF RS.3,41,291/- WHILE CALCULATING THE CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND. ITA NO.860/AHD/2011 -2- 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,41,291/- AS BETTERMENT TAX TO AUDA PER CHEQUE AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DEBITED TO ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WITH CORPORATION BANK. HE HAS REFERRED TO PAGE NO.15 OF THE COMPILATION WHERE THE COPY OF THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN SUBMITTE D BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SERVED WITH A DE MAND NOTICE FROM THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER (TPO) OF THE AHMEDABAD MUNI CIPAL CORPORATION (AMC) AND THE COPY OF THE SAME WAS FILED IN THE C OMPILATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT SOMEHOW IT COULD NOT F ILE THIS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO AND BEING A GENUINE PAYMENT, MAY BE ALLOWED. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO FILE NECE SSARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED T O DO SO, AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE AO AND THE CON FIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A), AND ALSO PERUSED THE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE AS WELL AS THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TPO OF THE AMC. WE FIND THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS CLEARLY OF ALLO WABLE NATURE. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE I N THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO VERIFY THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM TH AT IT HAS PAID THE BETTERMENT TAX TO THE AUTHORITIES, AND AFTER VERIFI CATION TO ALLOW THE SAME, AND FOR THIS PURPOSE, ALLOW DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DIRECTLY ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %&'( %&'( %&'( %&'( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) )* + )* + )* + )* + /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT