SMT. RASIDA KHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-5, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1506/JPR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 March 2019AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of the sale of house property was not justified. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold a house property for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,50,000. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 4,43,094 on account of this sale.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of the sale of house property without proper verification. The Tribunal sought a fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC

Before: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMAvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1506/JP/2018

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 19/03/2019Pronounced: 27/03/2019

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1506/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09 cuke Smt. Rasida Khan, I.T.O., Vs. 23,24, choudhary Vihar, Outside Ward 5(5), Gangapole, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: DXWPK 9690 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms. Anuradha (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 19/03/2019 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 27/03/2019 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated 09/11/2018 for the A.Y. 2008-09 in the matter order passed U/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).

2.

The only grievance of the assessee relates to addition of Rs. 4,43,094/- on account of sale of house property.

3.

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The Assessing Officer on the basis of information received from the O/o

2 ITA 1506/JP/2018 Smt. Rashida Khan Vs. ITO I&CI(CIB) observed that assessee had sold immovable property for sale consideration of Rs.5,50,000/- which was assessed by the Sub-Registrar for stamp duty purpose at Rs.9,93,094/-. Therefore, AO concluded that difference of Rs.4,43,094/- has escaped assessment and accordingly, assessment was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer did not give credit of construction done by her and made addition on account of capital gains. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the reopening as well as the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT.

4.

I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that the Assessing Officer has made the addition by declining the assessee’s claim of construction cost having been incurred twice. From the record, I found that the assessee has incurred expenditure on cost of improvement twice, one in FY 1992-93 for Rs.2 lacs and another in FY 2003-04 at Rs.3,50,000/-.

However, in the reply dated 03.06.2015 she wrongly took the cost of improvement in FY 1992-93 at Rs. 1,69,000/- and did not considered the cost of improvement of Rs.3,50,000/- incurred in FY 2003-04. The fact that the assessee was allotted the land on 10.10.1975 by the 3 ITA 1506/JP/2018 Smt. Rashida Khan Vs. ITO cooperative society is not in dispute. Thereafter she made construction in two phases as is evident from the map of the property enclosed with the sale deed'. The Assessing Officer without conducting any enquiry has simply rejected the subsequent claim of the assessee ignoring that assessee being an old lady in the first reply has incorrectly stated the cost of construction at a lower amount. Accordingly, I direct the Assessing Officer to accept the cost of construction claimed by the assessee and delete the addition so made.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27th March, 2019

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →