Yashoda Nand Gupta Jaipur v. Ito Alwar

Vk Dj Vihyh Vf Kdj K T Iqj U K Ihb T Iqj In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Jaipur Benches Smc Jaipur Jh Hkkxpun Ys Kk Lnl Ds Le K Before Shri Bhagchand Accountant Member Vk Dj Vihy La Ita No 1121 Jp 2016 Fu Kzkj K Ok Z Assessment Year 2011 12 Shri Yashoda Nand Gupta Prop Modern Cut Piece Centre Malan Ki Gali Alwar Cuke Vs The Ito Ward 1 4 Alwar Lfkk H Ys Kk La Thvkbzvkj La Pan Gir No Ahipg 5374 Q Vihykfkhz Appellant Izr Fkhz Respondent Fu Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls Assessee By Miss Isha Kanoongo Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls Revenue By Smt Poonam Rai Dcit Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh K Date Of Hearing 26 10 2017 Kksk Kk Dh Rkjh K Date Of Pronouncement 18 12 2017 Vknsk Order Per Bhagchand Am The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Orde R Of The Ld Cit A Alwar Dated 04 11 2016 For The Assessment Year 2011 12 Raising Therein Following Grounds 1 Under The Facts And Circumstances Of The Case The Ld Cit A Has Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs 29 70 891 On Account Of Long Term Capital Gain By Not Allowing The Cost Of Acquisition For The Cost Of Im Provement Of Rs 8 00 000 In Financial Year 1991 92 Ita No 1121 Jp 2016 Shri Yashoda Nand Gupta Vs Ito Ward 1 4 Alwar 2 2 Under The Facts And Circumstances Of The Case The Ld Cit A Has Erred In Not Considering The Va Luation Report Of Registered Valuer Without Bringing Any Ad Verse Material On Record Or Causing Necessary Enquiries 2 1 Apropos Ground No 1 And 2 Of The Assessee The Facts As Emerges From The Order Of The Ld Cit A Are As Under 5 3 I Have Gone Through The Assessment Order As Well As Submissions Made By The Appellant Followin G Facts Have Emerged 1 That The Appellant Is Deriving Income From Running Cloth Shop And Capital Gains During The Yea R Under Consideration 2 That The Assessee Had Filed Its Regular Return O F Income For A Y 2011 12 On 31 10 2011 Declaring An Income Of Rs 1 27 306 Later On 31 10 2011 The A Ssessee Had Filed A Revised Return Declaring Additional Inc Ome Of Rs 6 95 D 339 From Long Term Capital Gain 3 That As The Revised Return Was Filed Beyond The Time Limit The Ao Issued Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To Take Cognizance Of The Declared Additional Incom E And Verify The Claim 4 That During The Assessment Proceeding It Was Found That The Assessee Had Sold A Plot Of Land For A Consideration Of Rs 45 35 983 5 That The Assessee While Computing The Long Term Capital Gain Had Claimed A Construction On Th E Land For Rs 8 00 000 In The Year 1991 92 And Also Cla Imed Investment In A Residential Property To Claim Deduc Tion U S 54 Of The Act While Claiming Deduction U S 54 It Was Found Ita No 1121 Jp 2016 Shri Yashoda Nand Gupta Vs Ito Ward 1 4 Alwar 3 That The Assessee Had Purchased A Residential Prope Rty For An Amount Of Rs 5 50 000 However The Assessee Had Claimed That He Has Incurred A Cost Of Rs 1 65 000 On The Renovation Of The House And Therefore Claimed Dedu Ction Of Rs 7 15 000 Under Section 54 Of The Act 5 3 2 I Have Considered The Appellants Submission I Have Found That The Appellant Has Not Provided Any Reasonable Evidences In Support Of His Claim That I T Had Invested An Amount Of Rs 8 Lakhs In The Constructi On Of Building On The Land Property In The Year 1991 92 As Per The Sale Deed Only The Land Plot Was Sold To This The Assessee Has Claimed That The Build Up Area Was Demolished B Efore Being Sold The Claim Of The Appellant Is Devoid Of Any Reasonable Merit Accordingly The Ao Is Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee I Have Also Ta Ken Into Account That On Assessees Claim Of Investment In R Enovation Of The Residential Property He Has Been Able To Pr Oduce Evidence Of Rs 52 400 Only Which The Ao Has Acce Pted And Given The Benefit Under Section 54 F To That Ext Ent I Find That The Aos Decision Is Quite Justified As The On Us Of Providing And Proving The Extent Of Investment With The Documentary Proof Lies With The Assessee The Ao Ha S Considered And Given The Benefit Of Investment To The Extent The Evidences Were Produced By The Assessee During The Assessment Proceeding Therefore The Computation O F Ltcg Done By The Ao Is Justified Accordingly The Addit Ion Of Rs 29 70 891 Is Sustained And The Appellants Ground Of Appeal On This Issue Is Dismissed 2 2 During The Course Of Hearing The Ld Ar Of The Assessee Prayed For Deletion Of Addition Of Rs 29 70 891 Sustained B Y The Ld Cit A On Account Of Long Term Capital Gain For Which The Ld Ar Of The Assessee Ita No 1121 Jp 2016 Shri Yashoda Nand Gupta Vs Ito Ward 1 4 Alwar 4 Filed The Written Submission And The Same Has Been Taken Into Consideration 2 3 On The Other Hand The Ld Dr Supported The Ord Er Of The Ld Cit A 2 4 The Bench Heard The Rival Contentions And Peru Sed The Materials Available On Record Brief Facts Of The Case Are Th At The Assessee Derives Income From Running Cloth Shop And Capital Gains Du Ring The Year Under Consideration It Is Noted That The Assessee Filed Its Regular Return Of Income On 31 10 2011 For The Assessment Year 2011 1 2 Declaring An Income Of Rs 1 27 306 It Is Also Noted That Sub Sequently On 27 04 2012 The Assessee Had Filed A Revised Return Decla Ring Additional Income Of Rs 6 95 339 From Long Term Capital Gain Duri Ng The Course Of Assessment Proceeding The Ao Noted That The Assess Ee Had Sold A Plot Of Land For A Consideration Of Rs 45 35 983 The Ao Further Noted That The Assessee While Computing The Long Term Capital Gain Had Claimed A Construction On The Land For Rs 8 00 000 In The Year 1991 92 And Also Claimed Investment In A Residential Property To Cla Im Deduction U S 54 Of The Act The Ao Further Noted That The Assessee Whi Le Claiming Deduction U S 54 Of The Act Had Purchased A Residential Prope Rty For An Amount Of Ita No 1121 Jp 2016 Shri Yashoda Nand Gupta Vs Ito Ward 1 4 Alwar 5 Rs 5 50 000 However The Assessee Had Claimed T Hat He Has Incurred A Cost Of Rs 1 65 000 On The Renovation Of The Hou Se And Thereafter Claimed Deduction Of Rs 7 15 000 U S 54 Of The A Ct Looking Into All These Facts And Circumstances Of The Case The Ao C Omputed The Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs 29 70 891 And Thus Made The Addition Of Rs 29 70 891 In First Appeal The Ld Cit A Has Co Nfirmed The Action Of The Ao By Observing As Under I Have Found That The Appellant Has Not Provided Any Reasonable Evidences In Support Of His Claim That I T Had Invested An Amount Of Rs 8 Lakhs In The Construction Of Buildi Ng On The Land Property In The Year 1991 92 As Per The Sale Deed Only The Land Plot Was Sold To This The Assessee Has Claimed That Th E Build Up Area Was Demolished Before Being Sold The Claim Of The Appe Llant Is Devoid Of Any Reasonable Merit Accordingly The Ao Is Justif Ied In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee I Have Also Taken Into Accou Nt That On Assessees Claim Of Investment In Renovation Of The Residentia L Property He Has Been Able To Produce Evidence Of Rs 52 400 Only Which The Ao Has Accepted And Given The Benefit Under Section 54 F To That Extent I Find That The Aos Decision Is Quite Justified As The On Us Of Providing And Proving The Extent Of Investment With The Documenta Ry Proof Lies With The Assessee The Ao Has Considered And Given The Benefit Of Investment To The Extent The Evidences Were Produce D By The Assessee During The Assessment Proceeding Therefore The Co Mputation Of Ltcg Done By The Ao Is Justified Accordingly The Addition Of Rs 29 70 891 Is Sustained And The Appellants Ground Of Appeal On This Issue Is Dismissed It Is Noted That The Ld Ar Of The Assessee Repeated The Same Argument As Raised Before The Lower Authorities The Ld Ar Had Not Produced Any Relevant Documentary Evidences Which Could Confront The Addition Ita No 1121 Jp 2016 Shri Yashoda Nand Gupta Vs Ito Ward 1 4 Alwar 6 Confirmed By The Ld Cit A On Account Of Long Term Capital Gain The Claim Of The Assessee Without Any Evidence Cannot B E Accepted In This View Of The Matter The Bench Concurs With The Find Ings Of The Ld Cit A Thus Ground No 1 And 2 Of The Revenue Are Dismisse D 3 0 In The Result The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Di Smissed Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 18 12 2 017 Sd Hkkxpun Bhagchand Ys Kk Lnl Accountant Member Tk Iqj Jaipur Fnukad Dated 18 12 2017 Mishra Vknsk Dh Izfrfyfi Vxzsfkr Copy Of The Order Forwarded To 1 Vihykfkhz The Appellant Shri Yashoda Nand Gupta Alwar 2 Izr Fkhz The Respondent The Ito Ward 1 4 Alwar 3 Vk Dj Vk Qdrvihy Cit A 4 Vk Dj Vk Qdr Cit 5 Fohkkxh Izfrfuf K Vk Dj Vihyh Vf Kdj K T Iqj Dr Itat Jaipur 6 Xkmz Qkbzy Guard File Ita No 1121 Jp 2016 Vknskkuqlkj By Order Lgk D Iathdkj Assistant Registrar