SMT. RENU VERMA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3522/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 November 2017AY 2010-113 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 found that the assessee had purchased a plot, not a building, and the authorities below lacked evidence to support the construction cost disallowance. The assessee's explanation was not rejected.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an order confirming the disallowance of construction cost amounting to Rs. 6,57,136. The assessee contended that the addition was wrong and not based on evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of construction cost was justified when the assessee had purchased a plot and no evidence supported the addition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN

For Appellant: Shri B.L. Gupta, I.T.P
Hearing: 27.11.2017Pronounced: 29.11.2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [A.Y. 2010-11] Smt. Renu Verma Vs. The A.C.I.T. 258, Tagore Park Circle -19(1) Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAGPV 3870 P [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 27.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2017 Assessee by : Shri B.L. Gupta, I.T.P Revenue by : Shri Atiq Ahmed Sr. DR ORDER This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the ld. CIT(A)- 12, New Delhi vide order dated 18.03.2015 for A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

The assessee has raised mainly one ground which is reproduced hereinbelow:

“It is contended that determination and inclusion of income of Rs. 6,57,136/- as disallowance of construction cost is wrong, perverse, not based on evidences opposed to evidences on records, based on surmises and conjectures.”

3.

The AO made addition of Rs. 6,57,136/- as disallowance of cost of construction which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).

4.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It was argued that the assessee has purchased a plot which was a matter of fact as is evident on record which was placed before the authorities below. As per paper book page 8 which is site plant of the plot which depicts that it is a plot which has been purchased and not a building. Similarly, page 10 of the paper book speaks of Plot No. 5 and not building and there is no evidence with regard to the said construction with the authorities below and explanation by the assessee has also not been rejected and under these facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer is not justified in making addition and accordingly, the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) is reversed. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 29.11.2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →