DINESH BANSAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 4(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7853/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 August 2021AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the payments made to obtain the premises. The revenue failed to tax the recipients, and therefore, the assessee should be allowed the benefit of these payments.

What were the facts?

The assessee paid Rs. 2,38,75,000/- to obtain premises in an unencumbered way. The assessee provided confirmations, cheque details, and sources of cash payments to various individuals and entities.

What were the issues?

Whether the payments made by the assessee to vacate premises are allowable as expenditure in the computation of capital gains, despite the revenue not taxing the recipients.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Amit ShuklaDr. B. R. R. Kumar

Hearing: 03.08.2021Pronounced: 11.08.2021

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi dated 15.09.2017.

2.

We have gone through the facts of the case and the evidences available on record. We find that the amount of Rs.2,38,75,000/- has been paid by the assessee to obtain the premises under unencumbered way. Relevant confirmations have been filed by the assessee along with the detail of the cheques and the source of the cash wherever paid. Two individuals namely, SM Abbi and Suveer have shown it in the return and one recipient has confirmed before the ld. CIT (A). The details are as under:

2 Dinesh Bansal S.No. Name Amount(Rs.) Evidence of payment 1. K.D. Ahuja 6,25,000 Bank statement, cash book, confirmation, Driving license 2. Lalit 20,00,000 Bank statement, confirmation, Voter Card -NCJ0311126 3. Natl. Milk Supply 6,75,000 Bank statement, confirmation 4. Neeta Katyal 1,50,00,000 Bank statement, MoU, confirmation, Civil suit details 5. Praveen Sahni 10,00,000 Bank statement, cash book, confirmation, no ID in the paper book 6. Prem Pal 9,00,000 Confirmation, cash book, Voter Card- SZM0914895 7. Surender M Abbi 13,75,000 Bank statement, cash book, return filed 8. Suveer Abbi 13,75,000 Bank statement, cash book, return filed 9. V.N. Duggal 4,00,000 Bank statement, Court proceedings, 10. House Tax 8,69,100 Bank statement 11. Legal Charges 30,900 Bank statement

3.

The details of the payments made to the recipient have been duly reflected in the bank account of the assessee and the assessee has duly provided all the details to the revenue authorities.

4.

With regard to the payment of Smt. Neeta Katyal of Rs.1,50,00,000/-, we find from the record that an MoU entered between the recipient and the payer with regard to the dispute of the property and the eviction thereof before the SCCM Delhi. The compromise petition was duly signed by Smt. Neeta Katyal, Ujwal Katyal and Umang Katyal and there is no dispute that Smt. Neeta Katyal has received money of Rs.1,50,00,000/-.

3 Dinesh Bansal Smt. Neeta Katyal has not replied to the notices issued by the revenue department. There was no petition/complaint before the SCCM with regard to default of the payments as agreed upon in the MoU signed in the presence of SCCM.

5.

However, the revenue failed to bring this amount to tax in the hands of Smt. Neeta Katyal & Others while the evidence clearly shows the payments have been received by Smt. Neeta Katyal & Others. It is for the revenue to bring the amount to tax in the hands of Smt. Neeta Katyal & Others instead of denying the benefit of the amount paid by the assessee for vacating the premises.

6.

Hence, we hereby direct that the assessee be allowed the benefit of payments made to the tenants in computation of capital gains.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 11/08/2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →