M/s. Kamakshi Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3834/DEL/2014 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2015 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 383420114 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AADCK0271D
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3834/DEL/2014
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Kamakshi Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent DCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC 2
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 07-07-2015
Next Hearing Date 07-07-2015
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 02-07-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC - 2 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.3834 /DEL/20 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 M/S KAMAKSHI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 4735/11 22 PRAKASH DEEP CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 BUILDING ANSARI ROAD JHANDELWALAN DARYA GANJ NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN: AA DCK0271D ) ( ASSESSEE ) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.3835/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 M/S VASUDHA REALTORS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 4735/11 22 PRAKASH DEEP CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 BUILDING ANSARI ROAD JHANDELWALAN DARYA GANJ NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN: AACCV4339A) ( ASSESSEE ) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.383 6 /DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 M/S WALSH BUILDERS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 4735/11 22 PRAKASH DEEP CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 BUILDING ANSARI ROAD JHANDELWALAN DARYA GANJ NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN: AA ACW6487A ) ( ASSESSEE ) (RESPONDENT) 2 I.T.A. NO.383 7 /DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 M/S PASHUPATI TOWNSHIP VS. DCIT & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 4735/11 22 PRAKASH DEEP JHANDELWALAN BUILDING ANSARI ROAD NEW DELHI. DARYA GANJ NEW DELHI. (PAN: AA ECP1919Q ) ( ASSESSEE ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. ASHOK JAIN CA REVENUE BY : SHRI ROBIN RAWAL SR. DR DATE OF HEARING ON : 07 /07/2015 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 3 1 /07/2015 OR D ER THESE FOUR APPEALS ARE FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) - III NEW DELHI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 . SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL HENCE THEY ARE BEING CONSOLIDATED AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE BY DEALING WITH ITA NO. 3834/DEL/2011 (AY 2010 - 11). 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE ITA NO. 3834/DEL/2011 (AY 2010 - 11) READ AS UNDER: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) I S AGAINST THE LAW FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES NATURAL JUSTICE AND ALL OTHER PRINCIPLES AND RULES OF LAW. 2. THAT THE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) III HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING 50% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.11 59 314 DISALLOWED WITH OUT ANY BASIS AND IN SPITE OF HIS FINDINGS THAT AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT NO 3 WORK HAS BEEN CARRIED ON THE PROPERTY OWNED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES CONTRARY TO PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE FAC TS AND PROVISION OF LAW AS SUCH THE ACTION OF CIT(A) NEED TO BE UNDONE AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF 50% OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE CONFIRMED BY HIM NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 3. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) III HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE 50% ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.11 59 314/ - WHICH IS BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES CONTRARY TO PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE FACTS AND PROVISION OF LAW AS SUCH THE ACTION OF CIT(A) NEED TO BE UNDONE AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF 50% CONF IRMED BY HIM NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE LAW FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES NATURAL JUSTICE AND ALL THE OTHER PRINCIPLES AND RULES OF LAW. 5. THAT APPELLANT CRAVES RIGHT TO AMEND ADD DELETE OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE GROUN D OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT A HOUSE BUILDING PROPERTY NAMELY B - 544 NEW FRIENDS COLONY NEW DELHI WAS CO - OWN E D BY ALL THE ASSESSEE S EACH HAVING UNSPECIFIED SHARE IN THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY ALL THE FOUR ASSESSEE S THROUGH SEPARATE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 21.05.2007 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 37.50 LAKHS PAID BY EACH. THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD ON 28.07.2009 BY ALL THE FOUR ASSESSEE S THROUGH A COMMON REGISTERED SALE DEED TO M/S RADHEY KRISHNA INFRATECH PVT LTD FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2.10 CRORES AND THUS EACH ASSESSEE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS 52.50 LAKHS AGAINST SALE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARE IN THE PROPERTY. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED THE ASSESSEE S CLAIME D SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARE. 4 WHILE CLAIMING THE STCG THE ASSESSEE S CLAIMED IMPROVEMENT EXPENSES OF RS. 46 37 256/ - ON THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS DIVIDED EQUALLY AMONG ALL THE FOUR AND WORKED OUT AT RS.11 59 314/ - . IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS THE DEATILS OF THE IMPROVEMENT EXPENSES WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE S AS UNDER: S.NO. NAME AMOUNT REMARKS 1. M/S VERMA ASSOCIATES 31 06 880 PAID FOR REPAIR WORKS 2. M/S VINAYAK TRADE AND AGENCY 96 000 PAID FOR ACCOUNT PURCHASE 3. M/S NUTECH ENGG. CORPORATION 14 34 376 PAID FOR PLASTIC MOULDED FURNITURE 43 37 256 THE ASSESSING OFFICER CARRIED OUT ENQUIRES FROM PERSONS IN VICINTY OF THE PROPERTY THROUGH INSPECTOR OF HIS OFFICE AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE COMPANIES TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES WHO HAD CARRIED OUT THE REPAIR ETC WORK. IN VIEW OF NON COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE S T HE A SESSING O FFICER CARRIED OUT INQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF THE IMPROVEMENT EXPENSES FROM THE VENDOR PARTIES AS WELL AS FROM THE BUYER OF T HE PROPERTY THROUGH NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) 0F THE ACT AND SUMMON U/S 131 OF THE ACT. SH D K VERMA THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S VERMA ASSOCIATES APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPLIANCE TO SUUMON ISSUED AND ADMITTED TO HAVE CARRIED OUT THE REPAIRS TO THE PROPERTY HOWEVER HE FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND VOUCHERS ETC IN SUPPORT THEREOF AND ON SUBSEQUENT DATE HE FILED A LETTER CLIAMING THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ETC WERE LOST BY HIS EMPLOYEE AND A FIR WAS LODGED BY HIM IN THIS REGARD. SH RAM ESH BAHETI THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S VINAYAK TRADE AND AGENCY ALSO APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPLIAMCE OF SUMMON AND ADMIITED THE FACT OF SUPPLYING THE AIR CONDITIONERS BUT DENIED INSTALLATION OF THE AIR CONDITIONERS. THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WAS SENT TO M/S NUTECH ENGG CORPORATION WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE SUPPLIED PLASTIC MOULDED FURNITURE TO THE ASSESSEE S BUT SAME WAS RETURNED UNSERVED. THE ASSESSEE S WERE ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PRODUCE THE SAID PARTY HOWEVER NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. THE INSPECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT LOCATE THE SAID PARTY AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN 5 BY THE ASSESSEE S. SUBSEQUENTLY THE SAID PARTY I.E. M/S NUTECH ENGG. CORPORATION SENT A LETTER TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER CONFIRMING SALE OF GOODS T HE REAFTER ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMON AT THE NEW ADDRESS FOR CONFIRMING SALE AND INSTALLATION OF FURNITURE WHICH WAS DULY SERVED BUT WAS NOT COMPLIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CARRIED OUT ENQUIRES FROM THE BUYER OF T HE PROPERTY AND THE BUYER DECLINED TO HAVE HANDING OVER OF ANY FURNITURE FITTINGS AND AIR CONDITIONER TO HIM BY THE ASSESSEES. AFTER CONSIDERING WRITTEN EXPLANATION S OF THE ASSESSEE S ON THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF PROPOSED DISALLOWANCE OF SHARE OF IMPROVEMEN T EXPENSES IN THE HANDS OF EACH COMPANY THE ASESSSING OFFICER HELD THAT NO REPAIR WORK WAS DONE AND NO FITTING FURNITURE WAS HANDED OVER TO THE BUYER AND HENCE RESPECTIVE SHARE OF IMPROVEMENT EXPEN S ES OF RS.11 59 314/ - WAS DISALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF ALL THE FOUR ASSESSEE S. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN ASSESSED INCOME OF RS. 14 08 100/ - U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 VIDE ORDER DATED 28.3.2013. 4 . AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.3.2013 ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.5.2014 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 5 . AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 28.3.2013 OF THE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6 . GROUND NOS. 1 4 & 5 OF THE ASSESSEE S BEING T HE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEED NO ADJUDICATION . 7 . GROUND NO. 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSEE S RELATES TO CONFIRMING OF 50% OF EXPENSES OUT OF THE IMPROVEMENT EXPENSES OF RS. 11 59 314/ - DISALLO WED BY THE AO . 8 . THE L D. AR OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT A LL THE PARTIES ARE IN EXISTENCE AND PARTIES HAV E CONFIRMED RECEIPT OF PAYMENT AND THEREFORE 50% OF THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE S ALSO SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 1 TO 164 PAGES. THE AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE FURTHER ARGUED THAT ADHOC DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES TO THE 6 EXTENT OF 50% OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY EXPENSES WHICH HAS NOT BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND IN SUPPORT HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF MIDLAND INTERNATIONAL LTD. HAVING CITATION 109 ITD 198 ( DEL) ( 2007). HE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. ALLIED CONSTRUCTIONS 26 SOT 50 ( D EL) CIT V. DR R ATAN KUMAR SINGH 35 TAXMANN. COM 441(ALL))(2013) DCITV. M/S EPCOT SECURITIES PVT LTD ITA NO. 359/MUM/2009 OMPRAKASH JOSHI V. ITO 123 TTJ246( JODH)( 2009) ACIT V. INTERMEDIA CABLE COMMUNICATION (P.) LTD. 146 TTJ 476 (PUNE) DCIT V. SOPHIS TICATED MARBLES AND GRANITES INDUSTRIES 3 ITR (TRIB) 220 (DEL). THE AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE IDENTTY OF THE CREDITOR AND GENUINESS OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED HAS BEEN PROVED AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS. IN SUPPORT OF THE ARGUMENT T HE AR RELIED ON I) MIDLAND INTERNATIONAL LTD. 109 ITD 198 (DEL) (2007) II) ACIT V. ALLIED CONSTRUCTION 26 SOT 50 (DEL) III) CIT V. RATAN KUMAR SINGH 35 TAXMANN.COM 441 (ALL) (2013) IV) DCIT V. M/S EPCOT SECURITIES PVT. ITA NO. 359/MUM/2009 V) OM PRAKASH JOSHI V. ITO 123 TTJ 246 (JODH) (2009) VI) ACIT V. INTERMEDIA CABLE COMMUNICATION (P.) LTD. 146 TTJ 476 (PUNE) VII) DCIT V. SOPHISTICATED MARBLES AND GRANITES INDUSTRIES 3 ITR (TRIB) 220 (DEL): VIII) ROHINI BUILDERS 76 TTJ 521 CONFIRMED BY GUJARAT HIGH CO URT AT 256 ITR 360 (GUJ) AND APPROVED BY SUPREME COURT AT 254 ITR (ST) 275 (SC) IX) CIT V. DWARKADISH INVESTMENT (P.) LTD. 194 TAXMAN 43 (DEL) X) CIT V. BHAWANI OIL MILLS PVT. LTD. (2011) 239 CTR 445 (RAJ.). XI) PREM KUMAR 161 TAXMANN 50 (ALL). 9 . ON THE OTHER HAND T HE L D. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DISALLOWING 50% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE IS QUITE GENUINE AND THEREFORE THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD. 7 1 0 . I HAVE HEARD THE R IVAL ARGUMENTS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND THAT THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 VIDE ORDER DATED 28.3.2013 AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 59 314/ - . AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 28.3.2013 ASSESSEE PRE FERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.5.2014 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY DISALLOWING 50% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE. THE RELEVANT PORTION I.E. PARA NO. 6.1 TO 6.3 OF THE LD. CIT(A) S FINDING IS REPROD UCED AS UNDER: - 6.1 IT IS SEEN THAT THE ONLY QUESTION WHICH REQUIRES TO BE ADJUDICATED IS WHETHER THE REPAIRS WORK/IMPROVEMENT ETC. HAVE BEEN CARRIED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF THE PREMISES NO. B - 544 NEW FRIENDS COLONY NEW DELHI WHICH WAS SOLD TO RADHEY KRISHNA INFRATECH (P) LTD. ON 3 RD AUGUST 2009. IT IS SEEN FROM THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE THAT THE PAYMENT HAVE BEEN MADE BY AN ACCOUNT PAYER CHEQUES TO THE 3 PARTIES AND ON WHOM THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6)/131 HAVE DULY BEEN SERVED. AND FURTHER I T IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE SALE DEED (PAGE 11) CONFIRMS THAT THE 'SALE PRICE OF THE SAID PROPERTY INCLUDES THE COST AND EXPENSES FOR LAND AND CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT FITTINGS AND ALL OTHER FACILITIES PROVIDED IN THE SAID PROPERTY AND BUILDING.' 6.2 IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT VERMA ASSOCIATES TO WHOM PAYMENT OF RS.31 06 880 HAVE BEEN MADE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND THEY HAVE CONFIRMED HAVING CARRIED THE REPAIR WORK BUT BECAUSE OF THEFT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THEY WERE UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE SAME. IN MY VIEW WHEN THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND THE PARTY RECEIVING THE SAME HAS CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE CARRIED ON THE REPAIR JOBS IN THAT EVENT AO IS NOT RIGHT TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NO WORK IS CARRIED AND THAT TOO BY SIM PLY AND SOLELY RELYING ON THE STAND THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM BY VERMA ASSOCIATES. WHEN THE 3 RD PARTY WHO HAS DONE THE JOB HAS CONFIRMED THAT THEY CARRIED THE REPAIR JOB AND THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE PAYMENT AND WHEN THE SALE 8 DEED ALSO CONFIRMS THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS WITH ALL FITTINGS DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER FACILITIES IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCE AO IS NOT FULLY RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT NO REPAIR WORK IS BEING CARRIED ON. SIMILARLY M/S VINAYAK TRADE AND AGENCY WHO SUPPLIED THE AIR CONDITI ONERS ADMITS THAT THE ACCOUNT WERE SOLD TO THE APPELLANT BUT THEY DID NOT INSTALL THE SAME. IN MY VIEW IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE AIR CONDITIONER MAY BE GOT INSTALLED BY THE APPELLANT FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. AND IT IS ALSO QUITE POSSIBLE THAT AFTER THE SAL E OF THE PROPERTY THE PURCHASER MIGHT HAVE SOLD THE SAME OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE THERE IS A FORCE IN THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS THAT IN THE INFORMATION PROCURED FROM PURCHASER UNDER SECTION 133(6) MAY HAVE SAID THAT THE NO AIR CONDITION ER WERE INSTALLED WHEN THEY HAVE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. AS REGARDS THE AMOUNT PAID TO M/S NUTECH ENGG. CORPORTATION IT IS A FACT THAT THE SUMMONS WERE SERVED ON THE SAID PARTY THUS EXISTENCE OF THIS PARTY IS NOT IN DOUBT. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE PAYM ENT IS MADE TO THEM THOUGH BANKING CHANNEL. IT IS SEEN THAT WHEN THE SUMMONS ARE NOT COMPLIED THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AS TO WHAT STEPS WERE TAKEN BY THE AO TO ENFORCE THE ATTENDANCE OR NO PENALTY IS LEVIED FOR NON - COMPLIANCE BY HIM. THUS IF THE AO HAS NO LEV IED ANY PENALTY OR HE HAS NOT ENFORCED THE ATTENDANCE THAN IN THAT EVENT WITHOUT GOING INTO THE ROOT AND INVESTIGATING THE MATTER FURTHER IN MY VIEW SOLELY RELYING ON THE BASIS OF NON ATTENDANCE AO CANNOT COME TO THE CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT NO REPAIR WORK HAS BEEN DONE. 6.3 THUS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE TOTALING OF ALL THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT NO WORK HAS BEEN CARRIED ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION ESPECIALLY W HEN THE 3 PARTIES ARE NOT THE BOGUS ONE AND THEY HAVE CONFIRMED HAVING RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS. HOWEVER THE INFORMATION COLLECTED UNDER SECTION 133(6) FROM THE PURCHASER I.E. RADHEY KRISHNA INFOTECH P. LTD. WHERE THEY HAVE ADMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS OLD AND IT DID NOT HAD ANY FITTINGS 9 DOES CREATES A DOUBT. BUT THIS STATEMENT OF THE PURCHASER ALSO CANNOT BE FULLY RELIED UPON IF ONE REFERS TO PAGE 11 OF SALE DEED WHICH CLEARLY STATES THAT ''SALE PRICE IS INCLUSIVE OF ALL FITTING ETC.' THUS LOOKING INTO TH E EVIDENCES AVAILABLE IN MY HUMBLE VIEW 50% OF TH TOTAL EXPENDITURE ARE DISALLOWED AS IT WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. IN THE RESULT THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT STANDS CONFIRMED. 1 0 .1 AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) I AM OF THE VIEW THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE IMPROVEMENT EXPENSES OF RS . 11 59 314/ - TO THE PROPERTY. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 50% OF THE EXPENSES . THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT INQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND SAME WAS NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S VERMA ASSOCIATES THOUGH APPEAR ED BEFORE THE AO AND ACCEPTED THE FACT OF CA RRYING OUT WORK HOWEVER HE FAIL ED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS ORAL STATEMENTS WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S VINAYAKA TRADE AND AGENCY WHO SUPPLIED THE AIR CONDITIONERS ON ONE HAND ADMITTED TO HAVE SOLD THE AIR C ONDITIONERS TO THE ASSES S EE BUT ON THE OTHER HAND STATED THAT HE DID NOT INSTALL THE SAME. FURTHER T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY SEPARATE EXPENSES ON INSTALLATION OF AIR CONDITIONERS. M/S NUTECH ENGINEERING CORPORATION DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE SUMMON ISSUED BY THE AO . ON PERUSAL OF THE BILL OF M/S M/S NUTECH ENGINEERING CORPORATION WHICH IS FILED AT PAGE NO . 104 OF PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESEE IT IS SEEN THAT 250 NUMBER OF PLASTIC MOULDED FURNITURE ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED BUT EXACT NATURE OF ITEM IS NOT MENTIONED . FURTHER THE REGISTERED SALE AGREEMENT THOUGH CONTAIN S THE CLAUSE THAT SALE PRICE OF THE SAID PROPERTY INCLUDE THE COST AND EXPENSES FOR FITTING AND ALL OTHER FACILITIES PROVIDED IN THE SAID PROPERTY HOWEVER THERE IS NO SPECIFIC MENTION THAT PLASTIC MOULDED FURNITURE WAS PART OF ANY FITTINGS . MOREOVER THE BUYER HAS SPECIFICALLY DENIED TO RECEIVE ANY AIR CONDITIONER OR FITTINGS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE DISALL OWANCE TO 50% OF ITS IMPROVEMENT EXPENSES DOES 10 NOT SEEM PROPER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE I FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO SEND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE ALONGWITH EXPENSES ON REPAIR AIR CONDITIONED PLASTIC MOULDED FURTHER AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. I HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. LD. CIT(A) IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS AS RELIED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH . 1 0 .2 SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN VOLVED IN ITA NO. 3834/DEL/2014 (AY 2010 - 11) HENCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN OTHER APPEALS I.E. ITA NO. 3835/DEL/2014 (AY 2010 - 11) OF M/S VASUDHA REASLTORS PVT. LTD; ITA NO. 3836/DEL/2014 (AY 2010 - 11) OF M/S WALSH BUILDERS PVT. LTD; ITA NO. 3837/DEL/2014 (AY 2010 - 11) OF M/S PASHUPATI TOWNSHIP & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. BEING SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL ALSO STANDS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW A FTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ALL THE ASSESSES AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE CASE LAWS AS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 1 1 . IN THE RESULT ALL THE 4 APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 1 S T OF JULY 2015. S D / - ( H. S . SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 3 1 /07/2015 *AK VERMA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT A SSISTANT REGISTRAR