HEMANT PADMAKAR CHAVAN,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 779/PUN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 July 2023AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the allowability of the expenditure after considering the new evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed expenses for payments made to tenants for vacating a property while computing capital gains. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses for failure to prove genuineness, a decision upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the expenses incurred for vacating tenants are allowable as a deduction for computing capital gains, and if additional evidence can be admitted at the appellate stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. Joshi
For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Hearing: 19.07.2023Pronounced: 31.07.2023

ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 09.01.2017 for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 09 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant had filed the petition praying for condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of poor health as he was suffering from slip disc etc. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR has no serious objection to condone the delay. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for condoning the delay of 09 days. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 09 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under the head “Income from other sources”. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 30.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.16,04,561/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 21.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.2,78,43,145/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition by disallowing the cost of expenses incurred for sale of the property/land situated at Survey No.617A, Plot No.176, Nashik in the form of amounts paid to tenants for vacating the property of Rs.94,41,000/- while computing the capital gains for failure of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the expenditure.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →