TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oses - ITA No.1232(Bang.)/2010 - - - Dated:- 16-5-2012 - P Madhavi Devi, Jason P Boaz, JJ. For Appellant: Smt Sheetal Borkar, Adv. For Respondent: Smt Susan Thomas Jose, JCIT ORDER Per: P Madhavi Devi: This is assessee s appeal for the assessment year : 2006-07. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal; i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned addition as sustained by the learned CIT(A) is not maintainable in law. ii) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that in respect of inherited land from the husband, the cost inflation indexation was required to be considered right from 1985-86 since the land was originally owned by her husband and by virtue of Sec.2(42A) read with Sec.49 of the Act, the claim as made by the appellant was correct. iii) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant was deemed to have owned the land right from 1985-86 and the appellant had rightly computed the cost inflation index accordingly an the impugned additions made in this regard in respect of computation of capital gains on sale of Rozipula land and Arradhalli land are uncalled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant which were part of cost and expenses of land and liable for deduction u/s 40A(2) of the Act . 2.1 In the application to admit the additional grounds of appeal, it is mentioned by the assessee that though these issues are arising out of the CIT(A) s order, inadvertently these were not raised in the grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal and therefore, they may be admitted for adjudication. 3. The learned DR also confirmed that these issues arise out of the order of the CIT(A). In view of the same, we admit the additional grounds of appeal and proceed to dispose of the same as under; 3.1. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that ground nos.1 9 are general in nature hence, needs no adjudication. 3.2 As regards ground nos.2,3,4 5 learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is not interested to pursue the same. These grounds are accordingly rejected as not pressed. 4. Ground nos.6 7; The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs.11,77,019/- as business expenditure. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to produce expenditure vouchers. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted out by the learned counsel for the assessee there cannot be any personal element involved in electrical repairs, hamali weight charges, packing materials, crushing charges, factory maintenance, screening charges, transport inwards, grinding charges, telephone charges, office maintenance, traveling, vehicle repairs, office expenses, sales promotion charges etc., The AO has not pointed out any particular expenditure which are not supported by the vouchers and which is not signed by the persons receiving the amount. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that the expenditure mentioned above cannot be disallowed without pointing out any particular claim as not substantiated. 6. Coming to the other expenditure like telephone charges, traveling, office expenses, conveyance etc., we agree with the findings of the AO and the CIT(A) that they might involve an element of personal expenditure. Therefore, we confirm the disallowance restricted by the CIT(A) to 10% of these expenditure only. The assessee s grounds of appeal no.6 and 7 are accordingly partly allowed. 6.1 Coming to the additional grounds of appeal nos.1 2 the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty referred in the Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.49 of the Act. In the case before us, the property was owned by the assessee s husband and was acquired by him in the year 1991-92. It is on his death that the property devolved on his wife, i.e. the assessee herein. Sec.49 of the IT Act, deals with the computation of cost of acquisition of an asset with reference to certain modes of acquisition as provided in Sub-sec.(1) thereof. Sub-sec(1) of Sec.49 provides that where the capital asset became the property of the assessee (i) On any distribution of assets on the total or partial partition of a Hindu undivided family; ii) Under a gift or will iii) By succession, inheritance or devolution, then the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, as increased by the cost of any improvement of the assets incurred or borne by the previous owner of the assessee as the case may be. However, we find that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) have considered the issue in accordance of Sub-sec.1 of Sec.49 of the IT Act. After examining the assessee s case u/s 49(1) of the Act, the AO is required to give the benefit of indexed cost of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
