SEERANGAN SAGADEVAN,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD 1(4)`, SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 586/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)2 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 Assessing Officer had accepted 95% of the substantial cost and the engineer's certificate was provided. Therefore, the disallowance was without merit.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed 5% of the cost of construction for capital gains as the assessee could not substantiate it. The assessee had provided a completion certificate from an engineer for the construction cost.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of a portion of the construction cost for capital gains is justified when an engineer's certificate is provided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ/वाल ,लेखा सद4 एवं माननीय +ी मनु कुमार िग8र, �ाियक सद4 के सम9। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा:रणवष: / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Seerangan Sagadevan ITO बनाम/ 121, NDS Nagar, Yerikarai Road, Ward-1(4) Reddiyur, Alagapuram Salem. Vs. Salem-636 004. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ARKPS-1328-L (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ� कीओरसे/ Appellant by : None � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri S. Easwar (JCIT)-Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 20-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 30-01- 2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 21-12-2019. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.

2.

In the assessment order, Ld. AO denied 5% of cost of construction of Rs.29.92 Lacs while computing capital gains since the assessee could not substantiate the same. The assessee produced certificate from the engineer wherein he had given completion certificate for Rs.31.60 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.

3.

We find that substantial cost was accepted by Ld. AO to the extent of 95% and therefore, there was no reason to make the impugned disallowance. The assessee had furnished certificate from engineer in this regard. Therefore, impugned disallowance has no merits. We delete the same and direct Ld. AO to re-compute the income of the assessee. 4. The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 20th May, 2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →