Shri Vinod Inderlal Chitkara, Ahmedabad v. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-7,, Ahmedabad

ITA 1590/AHD/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 159020514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN ABBPC1596P
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1590/AHD/2011
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant Shri Vinod Inderlal Chitkara, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Dy.CIT.,Circle-7,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 18-11-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 08-06-2011
Judgment Text
/ // / / // / / // / IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD ! ! ! ! .#$ !#$ %& % ' BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER !./ I.T.A. NO.1590/AHD/2011 ( $ ( $ ( $ ( $ ( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SMT. VINOD INDERLAL CHITKARA 603 KRISHNA TOWERS PARTH SARTHI AVENUE SATELLITE AHMEDABAD $ $ $ $ / VS. THE DCIT CIRCLE 7 AHMEDABAD ) %& !./*+ !./ PAN/GIR NO. :ABBPC 1596 P ( ) / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( -.) / RESPONDENT ) ) / %/ APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.G.PATEL A.R. -.) 0 / % / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.L.YADAV D.R. $1 0 &/ // / DATE OF HEARING : 04/11/2011 2#( 0 & / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.11.2011 %3/ O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-VI AHMEDABAD DATED 21/04/2011. 2. THROUGH SEVERAL GROUNDS THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED THE ONLY ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE EXPENSE PAID TO ONE MR.NI TIN CHHABRIA OF RS.2 80 000/-. THROUGH THESE GROUNDS IT IS CLAIME D THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF PROPERTY AND IN THE NATURE OF RENDERING ITA NO. 1590/AHD/2011 SMT.VINOD I.CHTKARA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2007-08 - 2 - OF LEGAL SERVICES SUCH AS SUBMISSION OF LEGAL PAP ERS FULFILLING OF THE CONDITIONS OF SOCIETY AND TO CARRY OUT CONNECTED SE RVICES INCIDENTAL TO TRANSFER THE PROPERTY. 3. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 DATED 11/1 1/2009 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF BUNGALOW SITUATED AT PUNE. UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AN INCOME OF RS.1 51 63 433/- WAS DECLARED HOWEVER THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS ASSESSED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.1 54 63 0 75/-. AN ADDITION OF RS.2 80 000/- WAS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF BRO KERAGE CHARGES STATED TO BE INCURRED FOR TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER PAYMENT MADE TO MR.NITIN CHHABRI A PUNE OF RS.2 80 000/- WAS FALSELY CLAIMED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO NEXUS OF INCURRING THE SAID EXPENDITURE WITH THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY. THE SAID ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) IT WAS CONTESTED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS RESIDING AT AHMEDABAD HOWEVER THE PROPERTY WAS SIT UATED AT PUNE. THE APPELLANT HAPPENED TO BE A SENIOR CITIZEN THEREFOR E REQUIRED AN AGENT TO COMPLETE ALL LEGAL FORMALITIES IN RESPECT OF THE TR ANSFER OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT A BROKERAGE OF RS.2 80 0 00/- WAS PAID TO MR.L.J.CHHABRIA HOWEVER LEGAL EXPENSES WERE PAID TO MR.NITIN CHHABRIA. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT CONVIN CED AND AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 1590/AHD/2011 SMT.VINOD I.CHTKARA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2007-08 - 3 - 5. FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANT LEARNED AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE MR.M.G.PATEL APPEARED AND REITERATE D THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS A NECESSITY FOR COMPLETION OF THE SALE TRANSACT ION OF THE PROPERTY. LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE H AS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON THE PORTION OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR REFERENCE REPRODUCED BELOW:- 7. IN CONNECTION WITH PAYMENT MADE TO SHREE L.J. C HABARIYA AND NITIN CHABARIYA WE HAVE TO SUBMIT THAT OUR CL IENT HAS PAID RS.2 80 000/- TO BOTH THE ABOVE PERSONS WHO WORK IN A TEAM TO FIND A SUITABLE CUSTOMER FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY TO RE NDER SERVICES TO COMPLETE THE TRANSACTIONS TO HANDLE LEGAL WORK ETC . OUR CLIENT IS RESIDING AT AHMEDABAD WHEREAS THE PROPERTY IS AT PU NE. OUR CLIENT HAS TO AVAIL SERVICES OF THE BROKER WHO CAN RENDER ALL SUCH ABOVE MENTIONED SERVICES TO FINALIZE THE SALE OF PR OPERTY. OUR CLIENT HAD THEREFORE AVAILED THE SERVICES OF ABOVE MENTIONED PERSONS WHO HAVE RENDERED ALL SERVICES TO OUR CLIEN T TO FINALIZE THE ABOVE DEAL. SECTION 48 ALLOWS ALL THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSFER AND THE REFORE THE PAYMENT MADE TO ABOVE PERSONS IS FOR AVAILING VARIO US SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSFER AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE U/S.48 OF THE ACT. 6. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE LEARNED DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE MR.B.L.YADAV APPEARED AND ARGUED THA T NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOTHING BUT BROKERAGE AND A PORTION OF THE SAME HAD ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS PAID TO THE FATHER OF MR.NITIN CHHABRIA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN DISALLOWING THE SAME CLAIM WHICH WAS WRONGLY MADE I N THE NAME OF TWO PERSONS. ITA NO. 1590/AHD/2011 SMT.VINOD I.CHTKARA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2007-08 - 4 - 7. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES WE ARE OF THE CONSCIENTIOUS VIEW THAT THE EXPENDITURE BEING INCUR RED FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE U/S.48(I) OF TH E I.T.ACT BEING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONN ECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER. UNDISPUTEDLY THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS PAID THROUGH CHEQUE AND THE SAME IS EVIDENT VIDE A RECEIPT ISSUED BY MR .NITIN CHHABRIA WORDED AS FOLLOWS:- RECEIPT NO.00003/2007 RECEIVED WITH THANKS FROM MRS. VINOD I CHITKARA OF AHMEDABAD A SUM OF RS.2 80 000/- TWO LACS EIGHT THOUSAND ONLY V IDE CHEQUE NO.56228 OF ICICI BANK AHMEDABAD DATED 13/10/2006 T OWARDS THE CONSULTANCY FOR HANDLING THE LEGAL PAPER WORKS AND CORRESPONDENCE OF SIND SOCIETY AND MAKE THE PAPER W ORK AND CLEAN THE PLOT IN THE SOCIETY HEARING NO.418 AND GET THE NOC FROM THE SOCIETY. 8. CONSIDERING THE ADVANCED AGE OF THE APPELLANT AN D THAT SHE WAS RESIDENT OF AHMEDABAD AT THAT TIME WHEN THE PROPERT Y WAS TRANSACTED AND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE PROPERTY WAS SITUATED AT PUNE THEREFORE UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE CONS IDERING THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED AS AFFIRMED IN THE RECEIPT WE HE REBY ALLOW THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF CAPIT AL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUNDS RAISED ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 18/ 11 /2011 4..$ .$../ T.C. NAIR SR. PS ITA NO. 1590/AHD/2011 SMT.VINOD I.CHTKARA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2007-08 - 5 - %3 0 - %3 0 - %3 0 - %3 0 -5 6%5( 5 6%5( 5 6%5( 5 6%5(/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ) / THE APPELLANT 2. -.) / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! 7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7() / THE CIT(A)-VI AHMEDABAD 5. 5:; -$ / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. ; <1 / GUARD FILE. %3$ %3$ %3$ %3$ / BY ORDER .5 - //TRUE COPY// = == =/ // / !* !* !* !* ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION..04.11.11 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 08.11.11 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S18.11.11 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 18.11.11 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER