Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (3) TMI 660

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld. AR of the assessee and found that it does not suffer from any infirmity as no building approval is required for construction area of 870 Sq. Fts and property tax was not leviable on the residential house property. The assessee has shown the investment of source like (i) Rs.1,80,000/- (given by the wife of the assessee out of her Istri Dhan (ii) Rs.90,000/- (given by the father of the assessee in instalments) (iii) Rs.78,000/- (out of the funds available with the assessee) for which the assessee has filed an affidavit (PB 30-31). The assessee has also filed an affidavit of Contractor Shri Om Prakash Kumawat (PB 32-33). As decided in assessee own case [ 2022 (9) TMI 875 - ITAT JAIPUR ] AO has passed the assessment order ex-parte taking .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ancial yeawr 2000-2001, notwithstanding the fact that the valuation report of the said property submitted before the ld. CIT(A) as an evidence and for which the ld.CIT(A) himself observed that on verification of the documentary evidence and the valuation report, the claim of the assessee is appeared to be reasonable. In view of these facts, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not accepting the claim of the assessee. 2.1 Apropos solitary ground of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- 4.3 The submission made by the appellant and relevant case laws have been gone through. On verification of the documentary evidences and valuation report, the claim of appellant is appeared to be reason .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... see prayed that the ld. CIT(A) was not correct in observing that the assessee had submitted only valuation report from the approved valuer and not submitted any other documentary evidences like building plan approval, property tax receipt, if any, cost of improvement with its sources and bills and vouchers. The ld. AR further submitted that written submission alongwith supporting documentary evidences in support of the claim of the assessee were submitted on 14-08-2019 before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC Delhi and thereafter as required the same were resubmitted before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delh on 17-01-2021, 11-03-2022 and 21-09-2022. He further submitted that despite these facts, no other supporting documentary evidences like building plan approv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ngh (ITA No. 152/JP/2019-A.Y. 2013 -14 ) and Shri Ijyaraj Singh vs ACIT (ITA No. 91/JP/2019-A.Y. 2013-14). He further submitted that when construction work is clearly mentioned in the sale deed and shown in the Map which is part of the sale deed and also supported by the valuation report of the Registered Valuer and the affidavit of the Contractor then the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee as to indexed cost of improvement of Rs.3.41 lacs which should be allowed. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 2.4 The Bench has heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted from the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein he mentioned that On ve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... B 32-33). The Bench has also given its verdict in assessee s case in ITA No.95/JP//2022 dated 15-09-2022 for the assessment year 2011-12 on the issue of penalty u/s 271F of the Act, as under:- 3.4 After hearing both the parties, perusing the materials available on record and appreciating the details submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee, it is noted that the cost of acquisition of plot as per the assessee was Rs.555/- purchased on 16-04-1999 and thereafter addition/ improvement of Rs.3,41,000/- was made. In my view, if these benefits were allowed to the assessee then in that eventuality the capital gain arose on the sale of immovable property could have been below taxable limit. It is noteworthy to mention that the provisions of Sect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates