INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, CHITTOOR vs. FARZANA PATTAN , CHITTOOR

Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee’s improvements and additions as claim of Rs.1,67,24,187/-, we note that the corresponding lower appellate discussion to this affect reads as under :

We have given our thoughtful consideration to vehement rival contentions against and in support of the correctness of the CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate action and find no reason to accept either party’s submissions in entirety. This is primarily for the reason that although the assessee had successfully declared in the preceding financial years to have made the part of constructions of the sheds in issue along with all the necessary evidence of the corresponding construction agreements, contractor names and addresses as well as the payments made in issue, the fact also remains that she has made all the payments in cash wherein possibility of inflation of expenses cannot be per se ruled out. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate that a lumpsum disallowance of Rs.15 lakhs out of Rs.1,67,24,187/- will be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated 4 as precedent in any other case. Necessary computation shall fallow as per law. The CIT(A)’s directions deleting the impugned disallowance are upheld to the extent of Rs.1,52,24,187/- in other words.

This Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.