9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee's claim of expenses amounting to Rs.11,05,618/- (Rs.14,03,303 - 2,37,685, expenses already allowed by the AO) - Rs.60,000 (addition confirmed by the ld.CIT(A)) without any documentary evidences regarding claim of expenses relying upon the assessee's submission regarding theft of car along with documents relating to the said expenses not considering the fact that the assessee deliberately not showed the short term capital gain itself in the return of income and hence his after thought of theft of documents should not be accepted. ii) deleting the addition of Rs.2,36,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961 without giving any findings regarding the deletion of this addition. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate authority the action of the AO was assailed whereby short term capital gain was worked out at Rs.28,64,320/- as against Rs.16,96,697/- shown by the assessee. It was contended that the A.O. has not given the benefit of expenses incurred towards cost of improvement to the property, which should have been done. 3.1 On facts it was argued that the assessee had sold the property which he had purchased in 2004 in a raw and unfinished condition on which he had carried out major reconstruction and repair incurring an expenditure of Rs.14,03,303/- in order to make the property fit for living. These facts it was stated were not mentioned in the income tax return filed by the employer. It was stated that income tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents had been stolen/lost when the assessee had lost his car no. DL 1 CJ 6066 which was stolen. As a result of theft of the car which contained various articles and documents the assessee, it was stated could not provide expenditure vouchers. The factum of loss of papers it was stated was reported in the Kashmere Gate Police Station, under FIR no.81 dt. 28.4.2010 copy of which was also enclosed. It was further stated that looking at the level of income and the tax paid by the assessee deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- in his account cannot be considered to be abnormal. It was submitted that the various withdrawals from ATMs during reconstruction period are evidence on record and the balance which remained with the assessee were deposited back. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d spent money in different head as far as his written submissions in para 4 of his submissions. The appellant has claimed loan interest for 3 financial years and produced before me the statement from Bank of India which stands explained. The appellant has also satisfactorily explained before me the expenses incurred towards improvement/construction of the property apart from non judicial stamp and some misc. expenses but the appellant failed to prove the commission payment of Rs.60,000/- which was not verifiable from development expenses u/s 48(2) of the Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO is directed to allow the exemption from capital gain amounting to Rs. 14,03,303/- - 60,000/-= 13,43,303 and the addition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e deletion was not warranted. 8. Ld.A.R. appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that looking at the nature of expenses incurred by the assessee i.e. the expenses pertaining to non judicial stamp paper and loan interest it was his stand that these were documents which were available on record and are in fact the major amounts comprising the addition and evidence in support thereof was available before the A.O. who has not cared to look at the same. 8.1 Similarly in regard to other expenses it was his stand that legal charges of deed writer; expenses for repair works, POP charges, carpentry charges, normal expenses were of a very reasonable amount. The expenditure has been incurred and is proved by the withdr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , carpentry, white wash etc. may be examined in the light other than the theft of car also as the Paper Book relied upon before the CIT(A) has not been placed before us. Accordingly the issue is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Ld.D.R. was also required to file a paper book which was filed before the CIT(A), which is not before us. Similarly in regard to the other explanation the reasoning given by the CIT(A) namely that the documents were lost in theft in the face of the departmental objection that the theft took place subsequently may not be relevant reasoning as such we restore the issue back to the file of CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
