ISHWAR KALI,NOIDA vs. ITO, MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6417/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 April 2017AY 2012-132 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee could not produce bills and vouchers or any cogent material to support the expenditure, the benefit of the same cannot be granted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 1,70,000/- for the cost of improvement. The assessee failed to produce bills and vouchers for this expenditure and did not file a revised return for inadvertently undeclared long-term capital gains.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of the cost of improvement is justified when the assessee fails to provide supporting bills and vouchers.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN

Hearing: 25/04/2017Pronounced: 28/04/2017

ORDER This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of learned CIT(A), Meerut, dated 14.09.2016 for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised the sole ground on the disallowance of cost of construction as under: “1. That the learned assessing officer has made the disallowance of indexed cost of construction of Rs.1,70,000/- duly confirmed by the CIT(A) which is unjustified and contrary to the provision of law. As per CIT(A) order, a distinction is made by him for renovation and cost of improvement, due to which amount of Rs.1,70,000/- is disallowed, without appreciating the facts of the case. The said expenditure is in respect of improvement cost of construction, it is not at all in respect of renovation.”

2.

The other grounds are general in nature, therefore, do not require any adjudication.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.1,70,000/- on the cost of improvement and the assessee did not file the revised return on the Long Term Capital Gain which the assessee forgot to declare inadvertently. The assessee in fact realize later on that the Long Term Capital Gain has not been declared and therefore paid the taxes due but did not file the revised return. The assessee’s case was reopened u/s.148 of the Act. The assessee could not produce the bills and vouchers for incurring expenditure of Rs.1 lac and accordingly the addition was made to the income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer which is confirmed by the learned CIT(A).

4.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee could not produce bills and vouchers and no cogent material has been brought on record with regard to incurring of the expenditure on such account, therefore, in such circumstances and the facts of the case the assessee cannot get the benefit of the same. In the circumstances and facts of the case, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this day 28th April, 2017

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →