Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI
Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 20.06.2016 of the CIT(A)-I, Noida pertaining to 2011-12 assessment year.
The Ld. AR inviting attention to the impugned order and the addition made in the assessment order which were under challenge before the CIT(A) submitted that the issues found discussed by the Ld. CIT(A) do not pertain to the assessee and evidently facts of some other case have been mixed up while passing the order. Inviting attention at page 1 of the assessment order it was submitted that the assessee challenged the three additions made by the Assessing Officer in the appeal filed before the CIT(A). In the aforesaid assessment order, the returned income of the assessee as per record was Rs.8,11,190/- and the assessment was concluded at an income of Rs.20,31,940/-. The relevant findings of the Assessing Officer challenged before the CIT(A) referred to are :- 2. In the relevant assessment year, The assessee declared salary income of Rs.8,11,190/-. After discussion and verification of facts available on records, the income of assessee is computed as under :- Income as Originally Returned : Rs. 8,11,190/- Add :- As per bank statement cash deposit with saving A/c : Rs.10,45,000/- Saving Bank Interest : Rs. 10,234/- Difference in 26 AS & ROI : Rs. 1,65,512/- Total Income : Rs.20,31,936/- OR : Rs.20,31,940/-
Reading the said para of the assessment order along with the issues considered in the impugned order it was submitted that it would shows that reference has been made to facts which are not applicable to the assessee’s case. The findings arrived at in the impugned order which do not pertain to the assessee at all are reproduced hereunder :-
“6. The contention of the appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of the law as the same is inadmissible both on facts as well as on the grounds of law. The cost of improvement of an immovable property is not defined in the law. However, it has to be construed as improvement in the title of the owner of the property. In the instant case no expenditure is incurred to improve the title of the appellant. The repair and renovation of an immovable property is in the course of day to day use of the property and will not have any bearing on the title of the owner unless it results in improvement of the title itself. It is not the case of the appellant that because of the expenditure claimed the title of the appellant improved. On facts also the appellant has no case. The property in question is a flat constructed by the DDA and therefore, no structural changes could have been made by the appellant. It hits against the common sense and the normal prudence that a property which is acquired through a GPA for Rs. 50,000/- will require repair and renovation of Rs. 5,25,000/-. In any case, the appellant has failed to prove the genuineness of its claims of incurring the said expenditure before the ld. A.O. The claims of payment made to DDA is also not correct as the money receipts produced by the appellant are in the name of some other person. It is stated by the appellant that the said person was the original allottee of the property and by virtue of GPA In his favour he was depositing money with the DDA on her behalf from his own accounts. Be that as it may the fact remains that the payments to DDA were made on behalf of the allottee as a GPA holder and not on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant cannot claim such payment as cost of the property as its right to recover the said amount will lie against the person on whose behalf the payment was made and not against the property.”
Accordingly, it was his limited prayer that the impugned order may be set-aside and the CIT(A) may be directed to adjudicate upon the issues agitated in assessee’s appeal.
Ld. Sr.DR on going through the impugned order and the grounds raised
before the CIT(A) alongwith the assessment order agreed that it appears that facts of some other appeal have got mixed up and accordingly had no objection if the issue is restored back to the CIT(A).
6. In the light of submissions of the parties before the Bench and on considering the material on record I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be upheld. The record patently demonstrates that the facts of some other case have been mixed up with the assessee’s appeal. This conclusion is further fortified by the fact that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is dated 25.03.2014 and the Ld.CIT(A) in the impugned order in para 1 records that the assessment order is dated on 25.03.2015. In view of these patent and obvious mistakes evident on record the impugned order is set-aside and the issues are restored back to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after granting a reasonable opportunity of bearing heard the assessee.