TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t convinced and made addition on extraneous issues, being, the non-submission of details of property which was sought to be purchased, but, finally not purchased. The assessee has specifically contended that the amount was withdrawn from the bank for the purpose of purchase of some property, which transaction did not materialize. The AO has not shown that the cash so withdrawn was used elsewhere and was not available for re-deposit. Thus the presumption has to be that the amount withdrawn a few months before its re-deposit is out of earlier withdrawals, which does not call for any addition. Therefore, order to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. Computation of capital gain - Held that:- Sum incurred for sanitary fittings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property’ - Held that:- The contention of the assessee about the receipt of house rent of ₹ 1,08,000/- is unsubstantiated inasmuch as neither any rent agreement was placed on record nor the rent payment was received through cheque. It is seen that the AO has adopted annual value of the property at ₹ 2,25,996/- which has been disputed by the assessee as not in accordance with the Rules of House Tax Department. Under these circumstances, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO for deciding this issue afresh as per law, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - ITA Nos.4608 & 965/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2017 - SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not provide particulars of the property, area of the property, etc., which she wanted to purchase and also name and particulars of the person from whom she wanted to purchase the property etc. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition. The assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is noticed from the assessment order itself that the assessee withdrew a sum of ₹ 74 lac from her savings bank account in the second half of the calendar year 2010. A sum of ₹ 36 lac was re-deposited in the month of March, 2011 and the assessee s claim is that the remaining amount was re-deposited in the next financial year. The AO has made an addition of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y giving cost of acquisition at ₹ 45,200/-. The assessee, while calculating capital gain on the transfer of this property, adopted cost of acquisition at ₹ 50,000/-, thereby, including a sum of ₹ 4,800/- towards brokerage and registration expenses at the time of purchase. Since the assessee had no evidence of spending ₹ 4,800/-, the AO did not consider this amount as part of cost of acquisition which action was upheld in the first appeal. 6. Having heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record, it is seen that the assessee claimed to have spent a sum of ₹ 4,800/- as part of cost of acquisition of the property in 2002. Despite the failure of the assessee to produce any evidence in support o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... item in the above list is a sum of ₹ 14,500/- incurred for sanitary fittings etc., done by the assessee as a fresh exercise to renovate the premises. The second item is POP ceiling on which a sum of ₹ 19,320/- was incurred. This is, again, not in the nature of repairs and maintenance and has to be treated as cost of improvement. The last item is expenditure of ₹ 19,400/- on door and window. This is also a case of replacement of the earlier window and door and not its repair. As the assessee was intending to sell the property, she considered it expedient to improve the property before sale, so that a handsome price could be received. Since these three amounts are in the nature of cost of improvement and do not fall in the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,07,462/- Less 30% repair 32,239/- Income from house property 75,223/- 13. The AO required the assessee to produce a copy of rent agreement for demonstrating the rental income at ₹ 1,08,000/-. Nothing of this sort was placed on record. The AO determined annual ratable value of this property at ₹ 2,25,996/- by multiplying ratable value as residential at ₹ 73,332/- with 3 to convert into commercial property let out value. This led to the addition of ₹ 83,436/-. 14. I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The contention of the assessee about the receipt of ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
