2025 (5) TMI 1159 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowing the indexed Cost of improvement while working out the capital gain on sale of property - HELD THAT - On behalf of the assessee / appellant summary of improvement bill furnished before us in which all the details / explanation given and it can t be inferred that expenses details of expenses which is submitted are not integral part of furnished house and we have no hesitation to hold that the finding of both the lower authorities quite unsustainable in law in this regard and so ground No.1 is hereby allowed and addition in question deserves to be deleted. Treating cash deposit during demonetization period in joint account held by the assessee with her husband as un-explained investment of the assessee u/s 69 - HED THAT - It is brought in our notice that the assessment order for A.Y. 2017-18 in the case of Deepak Mathur (joint account holder and husband of the assessee Vandanda Mathur)in which the same amount was added in the hands of Sh. Deepak Mathur and view of that same amount cannot be taxed in the hands of assessee/ appellant Vadana also as it will create double taxation which is contrary to law and by only this reason the ground is deserves to be allowed and addition is deleted.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

(a) Whether the authorities below were justified in disallowing the indexed cost of improvement amounting to Rs. 49,64,602/- while computing capital gains on sale of a furnished flat, specifically whether expenses incurred on furnishing the flat qualify as cost of improvement under the Income Tax Act.

(b) Whether the authorities were justified in treating a cash deposit of Rs. 14,50,000/- made during the demonetization period in a joint bank account as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, despite the same amount being assessed and accepted as genuine in the hands of the joint account holder (the assessee's husband).

(c) Whether the cash withdrawals made in the financial year 2015-16 could be treated as utilized for purchases claimed as cost of improvement in prior years (2008-09 and 2009-10), and the validity of treating such cash deposits as unexplained cash credits.

(d) Whether penalty proceedings under section 270A(9)(c) were justified against the assessee for claiming cost of improvement expenses without adequate substantiation.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Disallowance of Cost of Improvement (Rs. 49,64,602/-) for Furnishing the Flat

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The cost of improvement, as per the Income Tax Act, includes expenses incurred on enhancing the value of the capital asset. The cost of furnishing a flat, if integral to the property, can be considered part of the cost of improvement, thereby reducing capital gains on sale. Precedents emphasize that expenses directly relatable to the enhancement of the property's value are allowable deductions.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claimed cost of improvement on the ground that the expenses related to furniture, electronic items, and furnishings are not integral parts of the residential house. The AO also noted the absence of books of accounts and ledger entries, relying instead on submitted bills, which were rejected as insufficient to substantiate the claim.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision without additional reasoning.

The Tribunal examined the detailed bills and explanations submitted by the assessee and found that the expenses were indeed integral to the furnished flat, which fetches a significantly higher market value than an unfurnished flat. The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to appreciate this material fact and unjustifiably disallowed the cost of improvement.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee submitted bills for furnishing items, and argued that these expenses enhance the property's value. The Tribunal found no valid reason to exclude these expenses from the cost of improvement.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that cost of improvement includes expenses incurred on furnishing when such furnishing forms an integral part of the property sold. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's and CIT(A)'s rejection was unsustainable in law.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the AO's argument that furniture and electronics are movable and not part of the immovable property but rejected it, emphasizing the increased market value of the furnished flat.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the ground and directed deletion of the addition relating to disallowance of cost of improvement.

Issue (b) and (c): Treatment of Cash Deposit of Rs. 14,50,000/- During Demonetization Period as Unexplained Investment under Section 69

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69 of the Income Tax Act deals with unexplained investments and cash credits. The burden is on the revenue to prove that the cash deposits are unexplained and not disclosed in the assessee's income. Precedents establish that mere deposit of cash during demonetization period does not ipso facto make it unexplained, especially if the source is explained or accepted in related assessments.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO treated the cash deposit as unexplained investment because the cash withdrawals were made over a period from May 2015 to March 2016, and there was a time gap between withdrawals and deposits. The CIT(A) concurred, reasoning that if the money was not utilized earlier, it should have been deposited earlier.

The Tribunal referred to coordinate Bench rulings which held that if the cash book and income tax returns disclose the amounts and no evidence rebuts the genuineness of the source, then the deposits cannot be treated as unexplained merely because they were made after demonetization.

Further, the Tribunal noted that the identical amount was assessed and accepted as genuine in the hands of the joint account holder (the assessee's husband), and taxing the same amount again in the assessee's hands would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible under law.

Key Evidence and Findings: The cash deposits, withdrawals, and their timing were scrutinized. The fact that the same amount was accepted in the husband's assessment was a critical finding.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle against double taxation and the requirement of substantiation under section 69, concluding that the AO's and CIT(A)'s treatment was unjustified.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the revenue's argument about timing gaps and rejected it based on precedents and the principle of no double taxation.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the ground and deleted the addition related to unexplained investment.

Issue (d): Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 270A(9)(c)

Relevant Legal Framework: Section 270A(9)(c) penalizes concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, penalty is contingent upon the claim being unsubstantiated and the assessee acting with intent to evade tax.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO initiated penalty proceedings on the basis that the cost of improvement was claimed without adequate evidence. The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished bills and explanations, and the disallowance was based on a factual and legal interpretation by the AO and CIT(A).

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted the presence of supporting documents and the absence of any evidence of mala fide or intentional concealment.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the Tribunal allowed the claim of cost of improvement, the basis for penalty under section 270A(9)(c) failed. No penalty can be imposed where the claim is bona fide and substantiated.

Conclusion: The Tribunal impliedly negated the penalty proceedings by allowing the cost of improvement claim and deleting the addition, though no separate order on penalty was explicitly stated.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"We have no hesitation to hold that the finding of both the lower authorities quite unsustainable in law in this regard and so ground No.1 is hereby allowed and addition in question deserves to be deleted."

"...the same amount cannot be taxed in the hands of assessee/appellant Vadana also as it will create double taxation which is contrary to law and by only this reason the ground is deserves to be allowed and addition is deleted."

"Simply because after the period of demonetization, certain amount of cash has been deposited in the account, does not mean the case in hand as on 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016 which is duly shown in the balance sheet and discussed with the department in the respective income tax return file and earlier is unexplained likewise."

The Tribunal established the core principles that:

• Expenses incurred on furnishing a residential flat, which materially enhance its value, qualify as cost of improvement deductible from capital gains.
• Cash deposits made during demonetization period cannot be treated as unexplained investment under section 69 if the source is explained or accepted in related assessments, and double taxation must be avoided.
• Penalty under section 270A(9)(c) cannot be imposed where claims are bona fide and substantiated by evidence.

Final determinations:

• Disallowance of cost of improvement of Rs. 49,64,602/- was set aside and the addition deleted.
• Cash deposit of Rs. 14,50,000/- treated as unexplained investment was deleted, avoiding double taxation.
• Penalty proceedings based on disallowance of cost of improvement lacked basis following the Tribunal's findings.