VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI, RISHIKESH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 192/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 March 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that some expenses, like repairs and brokerage, incurred in the unorganized sector might lack documentary evidence. Therefore, a lumpsum disallowance of Rs. 1 lakh was deemed just and proper, instead of the entire amount claimed.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the disallowance of cost of improvement and transfer expenses amounting to Rs. 10,80,277/-, which led to a consequential addition to long-term capital gains. The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence for these expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of cost of improvement and transfer expenses without sufficient evidence is justified. The validity of the reopening proceedings was also challenged.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Hearing: 21.03.2025Pronounced: 21.03.2025
1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069100397(1), dated 25.09.2024, involving proceedings under sections 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

It is noticed at the outset that the assessee herein is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action disallowing/adding his cost of improvement and transfer etc., to the tune of Rs.10,80,277/- thereby making the consequential long- term capital gains addition; in the course of assessment framed on 25th march, 2022 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

Both the learned representatives reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned long-term capital gains disallowance/addition representing cost of improvement and expenditure on transfer etc. We make it clear that there is no denial to the fact of the assessee having sold/transferred his twin capital assets i.e. property no. 91, area-167.28 sq. mts. (with construction) at Ganganagar, Rishikesh and Plot No. 60B, Mohalla Friends Colony, Etawa, Uttar Pradesh. The Revenue’s vehement stand is that it was incumbent on the assessee to have got his impugned expenses on transfer and improvement proved by filing cogent supportive evidence. It could hardly dispute that these are some routine expenditures like, repair, maintenance, brokerage involving

2 | P a g e unorganized sector incurred in cash which could not be altogether denied for want of any documentary evidence.

5.

Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum disallowance of Rs.1 lakh only than that in question to the tune of Rs.10,80,277/-; would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets the relief of Rs.9,80,277/- in other words.

6.

The assessee’s legal arguments challenging validity of the impugned reopening are hereby rejected for want of necessary records in the case file.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →