Sh. Shri Bhagwan Sharma, Faridabad V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 929/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8517 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S KEMWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J P GULATI; GOPAL MATHUR
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH (A) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 929/CHANDI/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR .: 2001-02 SH.SHRI BHAGWAN SHARMA, V ACIT, CC-II, FARIDABAD. CHANDIGARH. PAN :AUPPS-8673J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S/SHRI J.P.GULATI & GOPAL MATHUR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.S.KEMWAL ORDER PER G.S.PANNU, AM THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 2001-02 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DATED 22.04.2010. THE ONLY ISSUE IN T HIS APPEAL RELATES TO AN ADDITION OF RS.1,37,400/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 2. IN BRIEF, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FO UND TO HAVE SOLD A PLOT NO.277 SECTOR 30-33, FARIDABAD FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,50,000/-. THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE WAS THAT THE PLOT WAS PURCHASED AT THE SAME COST AN D THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE OF HAVING INVESTED A SUM OF RS.2,50,000/- FOR PURCHASE OF PLOT AND ALSO REQUIRED HIM TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT COPY OF PURCHASE DEED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO E VIDENCE 2 THE COST OF PURCHASE, ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED T HE SAME AT RS.1,13,600/-. IN COMPUTING THE SAME, HE CONSID ERED A SUM OF RS.3200/- REPRESENTING SECURITY CHARGES PAID TO M/S SWATANTARA LAND & FINANCE PVT.LTD., THE SOCIETY IN WHICH PLOT WAS LOCATED. FURTHER, IT WAS NOTICED THAT A S UM OF RS.1,10,400/- WAS PAID BY THE PREVIOUS ALLOTTEE OF THE PLOT TO THE SOCIETY, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN OVER B Y THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS MANNER, THE COST WAS COMPUTED AT RS.1,13,600/- AND AFTER REDUCING THE SAME FROM THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,50,000/-, THE BALANCE OF RS.1,36,400/- WAS TREATED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAI N. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO M ATERIAL OR EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE C OST OF ACQUISITION. 3. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ESTIMATION OF THE COST I S NOT JUSTIFIED SINCE, THE BURDEN WAS ON THE REVENUE TO P ROVE TAXABILITY OF CAPITAL GAIN. HOWEVER, LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE COST OF ACQUISITION. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR HAS RELIED UPON TH E ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE C ASE OF THE REVENUE. 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND NO REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPE ALS) WHEREBY THE ADDITION OF RS.1,36,400/- HAS BEEN UPHE LD. IT 3 IS EVIDENT THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION CANVASSED B Y THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2,50,000/- IS UNSUPPORTED. IN THE A BSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL FORTHCOMING FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS QUITE JUSTIFIED IN COMPUTING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.1,36,400/-. ACCORDINGLY, T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.08.2010 . SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (G.S.PANNU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 30 TH AUG., 2010. POONAM COPY TO : THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT (A)/ THE CIT/THE DR.