Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1456 - ITAT AMRITSARCapital gain computation - Issue of cost of improvement which was claimed by the assessee while computing long term capital gain, being the cost of improvement incurred by the appellant in the property sold - purchase of house - sum paid on account of renovation of old building - whether payment was made by the assessee-company through payees account cheque and this fact has been duly admitted by Sh. Kewal Krishan Gupta ? - HELD THAT:- Assessee has made vague submissions and allegations and in fact primafacie failed to establish its claim by producing any substantive and/or corroborative material as the statement of the assessee creates many doubts about the date of the purchase of the house, actual condition of the house, at that time, and renovation carried out in the house and in all human probabilities it is not acceptable to our conscious mind that while purchasing a house on consideration of ₹ 6,54,000/- why the person will give ₹ 4.95,000/- for renovation to the erstwhile owner. Even otherwise no documentary evidences with regard to the renovation works done previously and later stage of the house was ever filed before the authorities below or before us. On the aforesaid consideration, we do not have any hesitation to hold that that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly decided the issue in hand against assessee Addition on account of repair and renovation of the property - HELD THAT:- We have failed to understand as to why the assessee alongwith his mother had shown to be licensee/tenant of his father, once his father purchased the property on 29th April, 1999. From the complaint, it reflects that assessee’s father had purchased the hotel on 29.04.1999 and therefore sold the same on 04.04.2005 to Sh. Makhtool Singh and other persons and till date the assessee claimed to be the tenant of the said property. This case pertains to the assessment year:2006-07 which means Financial Year: 2005-06 and father of the assessee sold the said property on 04.04.2005, however, it seems that the assessee claiming the expenditure on renovation to be carried out in the F.Y. 2005-06 which at all, does not seems to be true. It is against human probabilities that the quotation dated 26.06.1999 reflects the amount of ₹ 10,31,906/-, however, the renovation alleged to be carried on later on after many years, which have been claimed by the assessee exactly as of quotation amount which creates many doubts for its authenticity. Further, we have to observe that in the Evidence Act, there is a provision to prove the facts by adducing secondary evidence, if primarily is not available as in the instant case, the assessee has based his case upon the theft taken place at the hotel premises, however, we have failed to understand as to what stopped the assessee to brought on record or to call upon the records of raw material supplier, contractor, labours and labour wages expenses if incurred if any. The assessee got various opportunities in the assessment proceedings to substantiate its claim, however, undisputedly failed to establish. Hence, in our considered opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issues under consideration by logic and well reasoning and therefore, liable to be upheld. Charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C as the charges of interest is statutory in nature and hence, does not required to be interfered with. - Assessee appeal dismissed.
|