9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as raised following grounds of appeal : - (a) That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below were not justified in disallowing the indexed Cost of improvement amounting to Rs. 49,64,602/- while working out the capital gain on sale of property being Flat No. A-5/705, Sahara Grace, Chakkarpur, Sector-28, Gurgaon. (b) That without prejudice to ground no. (a) above, appellant had correctly claimed cost of improvement and the authorities below had erred in law and on the facts by passing the impugned order disallowing cost of improvement incurred in furnishing the flat and the Ld. NFAC was not at all justified in confirming the action of the Ld. AO because at both end they failed to appreciate the fact that a furn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng P.Y. 2008-09 and P.Y. 2009-10 and therefore, the orders passed by the authorities below deserve to be annulled/cancelled. (c) That the authorities below were not justified in treating the cash deposited in joint account as referred above as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee ignoring the fact that the same has been assessed in the hands Mr. Deepak Mathur (Joint account holder & husband of the assessee) where the jurisdiction CIT(A) had accepted the genuineness of the source of cash deposit and had granted relief. In view of the contrary view within the department as to same transactions, the orders passed by the authorities below deserve to be annulled/cancelled. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add to, alter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and both the authorities below erroneously disallowed cost of improvement incurred in furnishing the flat and not appreciated material fact that a furnished flat fetch significant more value than the unfurnished raw flat delivered by the builder and ignored details/ evidence filed in support of the claim. 6. The assessee has submitted the details of improvement bill as under :- 7. Per contra the ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by both the lower authorities. 8. Regarding this issue the Ld. AO observed that the explanation furnished by the assessee found not tenable as the expenses incurred towards the item are not integral part of the residential house. It is relevant to mention here that the it was submitted by the assessee befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the genuineness of the source of cash deposit and granted relief and in view of that contrary view within the department as to same transaction deserves to be annulled / cancelled. 12. In this regard the Ld. AO found reply of the assessee/ Appellant not tenable only because of cash the withdrawal made by the assessee were made in the month of May 2015 to March 2016 and there is time gap of more than 1-2 years between the cash withdrawal made and cash deposited into bank. 13. The ld. CIT(A) while disposing the appeal dismissed the ground by stating that when the money withdrawn could not be utilized then why the same was held for such long time and not deposited. Into bank and for this reason only the contention of the assessee found unacc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
