Smt. Farzana Farukbhai Delhiwala, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Cent,Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 868/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 86820514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DK MISHR A
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL TALATI

Judgement Text

, , , , SMC, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, SMC BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' # ' !' # ' !' # ' !' # ' BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT ITA NO.868/AHD/2012 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2008-2009] SMT. FARZANA FARUKBHAI DELHIWALA 2-A, PRABHUPARK SOCIETY NARAYAN NAGAR ROAD PALDI, AHMEDABAD 380 007. PAN : ABMPD 0230 E /VS. ASSTT.CIT, CENT.CIR.1(2) AHMEDABAD. ( (( (%& %& %& %& / APPELLANT) ( (( ('(%& '(%& '(%& '(%& / RESPONDENT) )* + , #/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL TALATI . + , #/ REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K. MISHRA, SR.DR / + *01/ DATE OF HEARING : 5 TH DECEMBER, 2013 234 + *01/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-1-2014 #5 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I, AHMEDAB AD DATED 22.3.2012. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS GROUND NO.1, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION F LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,47,302/- BY NOT ACCEPTING AND APPRECIATING THE FACT OF SALE OF FURNITURE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ALONG WITH FURNITURE, WHICH WA S HAVING THE COST AT RS.2,10,000/- IN THE YEAR 2004-05. THE LD.CIT(A) H AS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE FINDING OF THE AO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMI SSIONS AND FACTS ON ITA NO.868/AHD/2012 RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT SOLD THE FURNI TURE WHILE SELLING THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN AS FU RNISHED BY THE APPELLANT BE ACCEPTED. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ALONGWITH FURNITURE H AVING COST OF ` 2,10,000/- IN THE YEAR 2004-2005. THE ONLY MISTAKE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE FACT OF FURNITURE BEING SOLD ALONG WITH PR OPERTY WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY HER. HOWEV ER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE COST OF PURCHASE OF FURNITURE OF ` 2,10,000/- WAS DULY DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 28.2.2005 AND HAS FILED A COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE SAID FURNITURE WA S SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE YEAR AFTER YEAR. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE WAS NOT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO AND THE CIT (A), AND THEREFORE, SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE RELIE D ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A), AND ALSO COPIES OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FILED IN THE COMPILATION BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF ` 2,10,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF FURNITURE ON 28.2.2005 IN HER LEDGER ACCOUNT FOR T HE ACCOUNTING YEAR 2004-2005. THE FURNITURE WAS SHOWN AT ` 2,10,000/- IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE ONLY MISTAKE O F THE ASSESSEE SEEMS TO BE THAT THE FACT OF SALE OF FURNITURE ALONG WITH RE SIDENTIAL PROPERTY WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY HER. HOWEVE R, IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT OLD FURNITURE IN THE RESIDENTIAL PR OPERTY COULD BE TAKEN OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT THAT THE COST OF FUR NITURE WAS DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IS PROVED WITH THE EVIDEN CE FILED BY THE ITA NO.868/AHD/2012 ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT ONLY MARK ET VALUE OF THE FURNITURE IN QUESTION AS ON THE DATE OF SALE SHOULD BE REDUCED WHILE CALCULATING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF RESID ENTIAL PROPERTY. ACCORDINGLY, I HOLD THAT ENDS OF JUSTICE SHALL BE M ET IF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE FURNITURE PURCHASED ON 28.2.2005 IS TAKEN AT ` 1,25,000/- AS ON THE DATE OF SALE OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE FINANCIA L YEAR 2007-2008, AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE VALUE OF FURNITURE AT ` 1,25,000/- AS DEDUCTION AND TO DETERMINE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ACCORDI NGLY, AND THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD