ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI vs. SHRI. SN MOHAN (HUF), MADURAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2576/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 December 2018AY 2011-124 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the Revenue's appeal, but then held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection for lack of evidence regarding the modern kitchen.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, which was delayed. The assessee filed a cross-objection regarding the disallowance of expenditure for a modern kitchen as cost of acquisition.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the tax effect and whether expenditure on a modern kitchen can be treated as cost of acquisition without evidence.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
For Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Hearing: 20.11.2018Pronounced: 03.12.2018

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.2576/Chny/2017
C.O. No.50/Chny/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -19, Chennai, dated 03.07.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has filed the cross-objection against the very same order of the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, we heard both the appeal and the cross-objection together and disposing of the same by this common order.

2.

There was a delay of 19 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay. We heard the Ld. D.R. and the Ld.counsel for the assessee.

We find that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the stipulated time. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.

3.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing, Shri AR.V.

Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative very fairly submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than ₹20 lakhs. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the circular issued by the CBDT fixing monetary limit for filing appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

Now coming to the cross-objection filed by the assessee, the only effective ground is with regard to disallowance of expenditure for providing modern kitchen in the flat as cost of acquisition.

Referring to the assessment order, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the cost of modern kitchen has to be considered as cost of asset, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer.

5.

We heard the Ld. D.R. also. Both the authorities below rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that there was no evidence available on record for providing modern kitchen. Even before this Tribunal, no evidence is produced for providing modern kitchen after purchase of flat. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

6.

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross- objection of the assessee stand dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →