AWADHESH KUMAR SINGH,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DHANBAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 234/RAN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi04 March 2020AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed a lump sum disallowance of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 75,000 respectively for the cost of improvement, stating it would meet the ends of justice. It also directed the deletion of the addition made under Section 50C for leasehold rights.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the lower authorities' restriction of cost of improvement for ground and first floors. The Assessing Officer also applied Section 50C to the assessee's leasehold rights.

What were the issues?

Whether the cost of improvement was correctly restricted by the lower authorities, and if Section 50C applies to leasehold rights.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH “SMC” RANCHI

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

आदेश /O R D E R (Oral) This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-Dhanbad’s order dated 26.04.2019 passed in case No.CIT(A), Dhanbad/10109/2017-18, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee’s former substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action restricting cost of improvement of ground and first floor amounting to Rs.1,98,085/- and Rs.3,00,000/-; respectively to Rs.90,000/- only. It is not in dispute that although the assessee has failed to prove all the corresponding payments qua these twin sums, the cost of construction per sq.fit; going by the corresponding time period appears to be prima facie logical and reasonable rate. I observe in this peculiar factual backdrop that neither party’s stand against and in Awadhesh Kr.Singh Vs. ACIT Cir-1(1) DHN Page 2 support the impugned cost of construction addition deserves to be accepted in entirety. I thus conclude that a lump sum disallowance of Rs.50,000/- out of Rs.1,98,085/- and Rs,75,000/- relating to latter head of Rs.3,00,000/-; respectively would meet the ends of justice with rider that same shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. Necessary computation including that of interest to follow as per law.

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →