LATE SHRI BALKRISHAN JOSHI (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI BHOOPENDRA JOSHI),INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(1), INDORE, INDORE
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश / O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 19.06.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 14.09.2018 passed by learned ITO- 5(5), Indore [“AO”] u/s 143(3)/254 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2008-09, the assessee has filed this appeal.
The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 63 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the
Page 1 of 17
Late Shri Bal Krishna Joshi through L/H Shri Bhoopendra Joshi, Indore. ITA No. 402/Ind/2023 – AY 2008-09
assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an
affidavit on stamp. Referring to same, Ld. AR submitted that the impugned
order was served by department to the e-mail of assessee’s erstwhile counsel
‘pkguptaca@gmail.com’ whereas the assessee supplied his own email
address ‘bhoopendra_joshi@yahoo.co.in’ in Form No. 35 filed to CIT(A).
Therefore, the impugned order was not communicated to assessee. It is only
when the present counsel of assessee on going through e-proceeding tab of
e-filing portal of department came across about the fact of passing of order
by CIT(A) and advised the assessee to file next appeal to ITAT that the
assessee became aware of impugned order. The assessee immediately paid
appeal fee and arranged to file appeal. Therefore, the delay has occurred in
such circumstance. Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there is no
deliberate lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of
assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any
benefit because of delay of 63 days. Hence, a judicious view should be taken
and the delay should be condoned. Ld. DR for revenue did not raise any
objection and left the matter to the wisdom of Bench. We have considered
the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or
material on record, the assessee is found to have a sufficient cause for delay
in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the
ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a
sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a
settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition
Page 2 of 17
Late Shri Bal Krishna Joshi through L/H Shri Bhoopendra Joshi, Indore. ITA No. 402/Ind/2023 – AY 2008-09
Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever
substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other,
the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-
oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the provision of section 253(5)
and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view,
condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.
This is the 2nd round of litigation by assessee before us. The
background facts are such that the assessee filed return of income for AY
2008-09 on 31.07.2008 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,13,910/- which
included long-term capital gain of Rs. 3,61,414/- from sale of a residential
house. The case was selected for scrutiny and the AO passed assessment-
order computing long-term capital gain at Rs. 60,59,070/-. Aggrieved, the
assessee went in first-appeal before CIT(A) but did not get success. The
assessee filed next appeal being ITA No. 608/Ind/2013 to ITAT, Indore
which was decided by ITAT vide order dated 25.09.2017 remanding the case
back to AO for deciding the issues afresh. The 1st round ended here.
Pursuant to ITAT’s order, the AO passed consequential assessment-order
dated 14.09.2018 u/s 143(3)/254 assessing the long-term capital gain at
Rs. 54,17,700/-. Still aggrieved by this consequential order, the assessee
again filed first-appeal to CIT(A). The CIT(A) decided assessee’s appeal vide
order dated 19.06.2023 granting part-relief. Now, the assessee has come in
next appeal impugning the order dated 19.06.2023 passed by CIT(A).
Accordingly, 2nd round before us.
Page 3 of 17
Late Shri Bal Krishna Joshi through L/H Shri Bhoopendra Joshi, Indore. ITA No. 402/Ind/2023 – AY 2008-09
The grounds raised by assessee are as under:
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in adopting fair market value as on 01.04.1981 to be Rs. 4,43,000/- on the basis of value worked by the DVO as against fair market value declared by the appellant of Rs. 7,50,000/- even when reference to DVO itself was illegal and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in adopting fair market value as on 01.04.1981 to be Rs. 4,43,000/- on the basis of value worked by the DVO without computing FMV using reverse indexation method. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in restricting the cost of improvement of house at Rs. 2,53,600/- as against cost of improvement claimed by the appellant of Rs. 15,24,870/-. Ground No. 1:
In this ground, the assessee precisely claims that the CIT(A) has erred
in confirming action of AO in adopting Fair Market Value (FMV) of sold
house at Rs. 4,43,000/- as on 01.04.1981 on the basis of report of
Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) as against FMV of Rs. 7,50,000/-
declared by assessee even when the reference to DVO was itself illegal and
bad in law.
Apropos to this ground, Ld. AR for assessee briefed the factual matrix
that while computing taxable gain, the assessee opted for deduction of cost
of acquisition on the basis of FMV as on 01.04.1981. The assessee worked
FMV at Rs. 7,50,000/-. But the AO made a reference to DVO for determining
correct amount of FMV. The DVO reported FMV at Rs. 4,43,000/- in his
report dated 08.12.2010. Then, the AO allowed deduction of cost of
Page 4 of 17
Late Shri Bal Krishna Joshi through L/H Shri Bhoopendra Joshi, Indore. ITA No. 402/Ind/2023 – AY 2008-09
acquisition adopting the FMV of Rs. 4,43,000/- as against the FMV of Rs.
7,50,000/- claimed by assessee.
Ld. AR next submitted that the assessee, in its ground, has raised a
legal objection that the AO’s reference to DVO was itself illegal and bad in
law. Ld. AR drew us to certain papers filed in Paper-Book in an attempt to
show as to how and why the reference made by AO was illegal. Per contra,
Ld. DR for revenue made a strong opposition against raising of this ground
itself. He submitted that this is the 2nd round of litigation and in 1st round,
the ITAT, in its aforesaid order dated 25.09.2017, has remanded to AO only
Ground No. 2, 3 and 4 raised by assessee therein for adjudication afresh.
Those Ground No. 2, 3 and 4 remanded by ITAT do not involve the issue of
illegality of reference. Further, the assessee has not raised the issue of
illegality of reference even in the consequential proceeding undertaken by
AO pursuant to ITAT’s order and this issue is nowhere emanating from AO’s
consequential order also. Therefore, when this issue did not form part of
remand made by ITAT, the assessee cannot claim it now in present appeal.
Ld. DR very forcefully prayed to reject this ground of assessee as non-
maintainable.
We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the
documents held on record. On perusal and careful consideration, we find
that in the 1st round of litigation, the assessee raised 6 grounds before ITAT
and in Ground No. 5, the assessee challenged the reference made by AO to
Page 5 of 17
Late Shri Bal Krishna Joshi through L/H Shri Bhoopendra Joshi, Indore. ITA No. 402/Ind/2023 – AY 2008-09
the DVO to determine FMV. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, in its aforesaid
order dated 25.06.2017, adjudicated thus:
“2. Ground nos. 1, 5 and 6 are general in nature, which require no adjudication”. Therefore, the issue of illegality of reference was not remanded by ITAT to
the AO. The assessee did not file any Misc. Application against the order of
ITAT which shows there was no grievance to assessee from ITAT’s order.
Thus, the issue closed at that stage. Needless to add here that there is no
whisper on this issue in the consequential order passed by AO which shows
the assessee has not raised this claim even before AO in consequential
proceeding. Faced with this situation, we are afraid that we can allow this
issue in this 2nd round when the issue stands already closed by Co-ordinate
Bench in 1st round. Being so, we find merit in the submission of Ld. DR that
the ground raised by assessee is not maintainable before us. Consequently,
this ground is dismissed.
Ground No. 2:
In this ground, the assessee claims that the CIT(A) has erred in
confirming action of AO in adopting Fair Market Value (FMV) as per DVO’s
report without computing FMV using ‘reverse indexation method’.
Ld. AR’s only contention is such that the lower-authorities ought to
have computed FMV on the basis of ‘reverse indexation method’.
Undisputedly, there is no such method prescribed in Income-tax Act, 1961.
Page 6 of 17
Late Shri Bal Krishna Joshi through L/H Shri Bhoopendra Joshi, Indore. ITA No. 402/Ind/2023 – AY 2008-09
But the modus in this method is such that the present ‘sale-consideration’ of
sold asset is divided by present inflation index and multiplied by inflation
index as on 01.04.1981. During hearing, we have clearly indicated to Ld. AR
that this method is the last resort when there is no other basis available for
determination of FMV as on 01.04.1981. And in the present case, the AO
has made a reference to DVO and the DVO has given a detailed working of
his estimation (Page 135 of Paper-Book) and in Para 7.1 of his report (Page
133 of Paper-Book) the DVO has also mentioned the method of valuation
adopted by him as “FMV by Collectors Guidelines for registration of
immovable property”. Therefore, there is a good working done by DVO on the
basis of a strong undisputable method. Hence, in this situation, the ‘reverse
indexation method’ cannot be allowed. Ld. AR could not controvert this.
Consequently, we do not find any error in the order of AO in accepting FMV
of Rs. 4,43,000/- reported by DVO. Accordingly, this ground is also
dismissed.
Ground No. 3:
In this ground, the assessee claims that the CIT(A) has erred in
confirming action of AO in restricting the cost of improvement at Rs.
2,53,600/- (correct amount should be Rs. 2,53,650/-) as against the cost of
improvement claimed by assessee at Rs. 15,24,870/-.
The facts apropos to this ground are such that in the return of income
filed, the assessee claimed deduction of cost of improvement at Rs.
Page 7 of 17
Late Shri Bal Krishna Joshi through L/H Shri Bhoopendra Joshi, Indore. ITA No. 402/Ind/2023 – AY 2008-09
8,95,000/-. The AO, however, rejected assessee’s claim fully. The assessee
carried this issue before ITAT, Indore in 1st round by raising following
ground:
“3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the claim of Rs. 8,95,000/- incurred towards cost of improvement of the house”. The ITAT, in order dated 25.09.2017, remanded this issue back to AO for
adjudication afresh. While passing consequential order pursuant to ITAT’s
direction, the AO allowed assessee’s claim at Rs. 2,53,650/- (consisting of
Rs. 94,156/- incurred during FY 1989-90 + Rs. 1,59,494/- incurred during
FY 1990-91). During appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed AO’s action.
At first, we re-produce below the order passed by lower authorities in
this regard:
AO’s order: “The assessee submitted the copy of paper book produced before the Hon'ble ITAT along with copies of capital account of the assessee for F.Y. 1989-90 and 1990-91 wherein amount of withdrawal of Rs. 94,156/- and withdrawal of Rs. 1,59,494/- was done for the house construction. Thus, evidentially assessee must have incurred expenses of improvement of house. Therefore, the cost of improvement in 90-91 will be adopted at Rs. 94,156/- and indexed value will be worked out as 94156 x 551/172 = 301627/-. The cost of improvement will be adopted in 1991-92 at Rs. 159494/- and indexed value will be adopted as 159494 x 554/182 = 482863/-. Thus, total cost of improvement will be adopted at Rs. 7,84,500/- that will be considered to work out long term capital gains. The claim of expenses incurred by family members of Rs. 6,41,370/- cannot be accepted as the assessee has not filed the adequate proof of expenditure and their copy of ITR in support of the claim.”
CIT(A)’s order: “3…….Regarding the cost of improvement, the appellant filed copy of capital account for the F.Y. 1990-91 wherein drawing for house construction was shown as Rs. 1,59,414/-. The appellant shown capital account for F.Y. 1989-90 wherein drawing were shown at Rs. 94,136/-. The appellant further claimed that Rs. 6,00,000/- were incurred by the firm and his family members and thus total cost of improvement was Rs. 8,95,000/- by the year 1993-94 and that should be accepted. The AO referred the matter to the DVO for ascertaining fair market value as on 01/04/1981. The DVO vide his report dated 08/12/2010 determined the cost of house as on 01/04/1981 at
Page 8 of 17
Late Shri Bal Krishna Joshi through L/H Shri Bhoopendra Joshi, Indore. ITA No. 402/Ind/2023 – AY 2008-09
Rs.4,43,000/-. Regarding the cost of improvement, the DVO informed that the appellant has not produced any document or detail for scope of work. The AO therefore held that expenditure of Rs. 8,95,000/- was huge amount in F.Y. 1993-94 and it was not realistic that the appellant had not maintained any record of such investment. The AO therefore disallowed the claim of improvement of Rs. 8,95,000/- by the appellant…..The AO accepted the claim of withdrawal of Rs. 94,136/- and Rs. 1,59,494/- in F.Y. 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively towards construction of the house and allowed this as cost of improvement after due indexation. However, the AO did not allow the remaining claim of appellant i.e. Rs. 8,95,000 (-) Rs. 94,136 (-) Rs. 1,59,494 = Rs. 6,41,370/- for want of adequate proof.
Now, the appellant submits that the appellant has provided entire details of expenses incurred towards improvement/construction of the residential house by him and his other family members in the course of the assessment proceedings. The appellant claims that major expenses were through family concern M/s. India Motor Cycle Agency. The appellant submits that he has submitted entire documents. The claim of the appellant is summarized as under:
S. Name of the Amount No person 1993-94 1994-95 Rs. 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93
3,35,070 1. The appellant 94,136 1,59,494 81,440 2. Smt. Asha Joshi (Wife) 1,14,000 1,14,000
Shailendra Joshi (Son) 65,000 60,800 1,25,800
Bhupendra Joshi (Son) 9,50,000 9,50,000
94136 2,24,494 1,42,240 15,24,870 1,14,000 9,50,000 Total
Facts on record and appellant’s submissions have been examined. It is to be noted that the cost of improvement claimed by the appellant at the time of assessment was only Rs. 8,95,000/-. The break-up of this expenses claimed as under:
F.Y. 1989-90 Rs. 94,136/- By appellant F.Y. 1990-91 Rs. 1,59,494/- By appellant By Firm and Family Members F.Y. 1990-91 Rs. 6,41,370/-
At the assessment stage of the first round, the appellant did not submit name of Firm or family members who have contributed balance of Rs. 6,41,370/- neither submitted any evidence regarding this expenditure or even evidence of withdrawal of this amount from any bank account by any of the family members of the said firm. Subsequently the appellant changed the stand and submitted that the balance amount of Rs. 6,41,370/- was not given by the firm rather 3 family members but no proof thereof was submitted. Now the appellant submits that total expenditure towards improvement/construction was not Rs. 8,95,000/- as claimed earlier rather Rs. 15,24,870/-. This claim is shared between appellant, his wife and two sons. The appellant now claims to have spent Rs. 3,35,070/- with additional Rs. 81,440/- being
Page 9 of 17
Late Shri Bal Krishna Joshi through L/H Shri Bhoopendra Joshi, Indore. ITA No. 402/Ind/2023 – AY 2008-09
expenses in F.Y. 1991-92. Rs. 1,14,000/- is claimed to be spent by his wife in F.Y. 1993-94. Rs. 1,25,800/- is claimed to be spent by his son Shailendra Joshi in F.Y.1990-91 & 1991-92 and Rs. 9,50,000/- is claimed to be spent by his son Bhupendra Joshi in F.Y. 1994-95. Facts on record and appellant’s submissions have been examined. The appellant has been shifting his stand very frequently. Initially the claim was Rs. 8,95,000/- only which has now increased to Rs. 15,24,870/-. Initially the expenses were made by the appellant and a family firm and some unnamed family members. But later by affidavit firm name was withdrawn and 3 family members names were introduced. Proof of withdrawal from claimed account has not been submitted. Proof of expenditure made on construction/ improvement has not been submitted and therefore the additional claim of the appellant cannot be entertained. It is also to be kept in mind that we are dealing with the assessment of the appellant and therefore claim of improvement has to be restricted to the extent of expenses incurred by the appellant. In view of all the facts as enumerated above, I agree with the view adapted by the AO in his order u/s 143/254 dated 14.09.2018 allowing cost of improvement to the extent of withdrawal demonstrated by the appellant amounting to Rs. 2,53,630/- with indexation benefit thereon. Appellant’s appeal on these grounds is therefore dismissed.” 14. Ld. DR for revenue raised a preliminary objection that the assessee
claimed cost at Rs. 8,95,000/- in return of income; that during 1st round of
proceeding upto ITAT the assessee contested cost at Rs. 8,95,000/- only
whereupon the ITAT remanded this issue to AO for adjudication afresh.
However, the assessee has escalated his claim to Rs. 15,24,870/- in
consequential proceeding before AO which is very much wrong. He
submitted that when the assessee’s claim itself was Rs. 8,95,000/- in the
return of income and to that extent only ITAT remanded to AO, how could
assessee claim cost at Rs. 15,24,800/- in 2nd round. He submitted that
entertaining claim of Rs. 15,24,800/- by this Bench will go beyond what was
remanded/adjudicated by Co-ordinate Bench in 1st round, therefore this
Bench should restrict its examination and adjudication to the extent of Rs.
8,95,000/- only. Ld. AR for assessee could not make any plausible
explanation to controvert this objection of Ld. DR. We found a strong merit
in the objection of Ld. DR and therefore indicated to Ld. AR during the
Page 10 of 17
Late Shri Bal Krishna Joshi through L/H Shri Bhoopendra Joshi, Indore. ITA No. 402/Ind/2023 – AY 2008-09
hearing itself that the assessee’s claim beyond Rs. 8,95,000/- is non-
maintainable in present appeal before us.
So far as the cost of Rs. 8,95,000/- claimed in 1st round is concerned,
the Ld. AR could not pinpoint the exact elements of Rs. 8,95,000/- except to
make a submission that it was computed by assessee at the time when the
assessee was collecting documents of cost incurred. Ld. AR, however,
referred the components of Rs. 15,24,870/- claimed by assessee in 2nd
round which are exactly same as noted by CIT(A) in a Tabular format in his
order, already re-reproduced by us in foregoing para. Ld. AR carried us to
various pages of Paper-Book which are basically in the nature of Capital
A/cs of assessee, Smt. Asha Joshi (assessee’s wife), Shailendra Joshi
(assessee’s son) and Bhupendra Joshi (assessee’s son) extracted from books
of account of M/s India Motor Cycle Agency or M/s Baba Motor Cycle
Agency (partnership firms in which the assessee/wife/sons of assessee were
partners) to demonstrate that all figures of costs as mentioned in the Table
of CIT(A)’s order are tallied with corresponding Capital A/cs and that they
were met by respective persons from withdrawals made from those
partnership firms. Ld. AR showed that there are debit entries with the
caption “House construction” in the Capital A/cs of respective persons. On
perusal, we find that the assessee has incurred only cost of Rs. 94,136/- in
FY 1989-90, Rs. 1,59,494/- in FY 1990-91 and Rs. 81,440/- in FY 1991-92
aggregating to Rs. 3,35,070/- and a large chunk of cost amounting to Rs.
11,89,800/- is being claimed to have been incurred by family members of
Page 11 of 17
Late Shri Bal Krishna Joshi through L/H Shri Bhoopendra Joshi, Indore. ITA No. 402/Ind/2023 – AY 2008-09
assessee. The AO has already allowed cost of Rs. 94,136/- in FY 1989-90
and Rs. 1,59,494/- in FY 1990-91 incurred by assessee and the CIT(A) has
confirmed AO’s order. The CIT(A) has passed a very specific and stringent
order taking into account the case history of assessee. Even at the cost of
repetition, we extract the last para of the order of CIT(A):
“Facts on record and appellant’s submissions have been examined. The appellant has been shifting his stand very frequently. Initially the claim was Rs. 8,95,000/- only which has now increased to Rs. 15,24,870/-. Initially the expenses were made by the appellant and a family firm and some unnamed family members. But later by affidavit firm name was withdrawn and 3 family members names were introduced. Proof of withdrawal from claimed account has not been submitted. Proof of expenditure made on construction/ improvement has not been submitted and therefore the additional claim of the appellant cannot be entertained. It is also to be kept in mind that we are dealing with the assessment of the appellant and therefore claim of improvement has to be restricted to the extent of expenses incurred by the appellant. In view of all the facts as enumerated above, I agree with the view adapted by the AO in his order u/s 143/254 dated 14.09.2018 allowing cost of improvement to the extent of withdrawal demonstrated by the appellant amounting to Rs. 2,53,630/- with indexation benefit thereon. Appellant’s appeal on these grounds is therefore dismissed.” On a careful consideration, we are in agreement with the Ld. CIT(A) that the
assessee has changed not only the quantum of cost but also the sources for
incurring cost. The observation of CIT(A) is manifest from a simple point that
the assessee filed following affidavit, duly solemnised on stamp, to the AO
during 1st round to explain the source of Rs. 8,95,000/- of cost in para 3
and 4:
Page 12 of 17
Late Shri Bal Krishna Joshi through L/H Shri Bhoopendra Joshi, Indore. ITA No. 402/Ind/2023 – AY 2008-09
Page 13 of 17
Late Shri Bal Krishna Joshi through L/H Shri Bhoopendra Joshi, Indore. ITA No. 402/Ind/2023 – AY 2008-09
Page 14 of 17
Late Shri Bal Krishna Joshi through L/H Shri Bhoopendra Joshi, Indore. ITA No. 402/Ind/2023 – AY 2008-09
If we compare these figures with the figures noted by CIT(A) in the Table, it
is clearly discernible that the assessee has not only changed the total
amount of claim but also the internal figures of sources/amounts of
sources. Therefore, the CIT(A) is very much justified in giving no credence to
assessee’s submission. In such a peculiar situation of changing
facts/figures from time to time, we agree with the Ld. CIT(A)’s conclusion
that the assessee can be given credit for the withdrawals declared by himself
only and not by other persons. Ld. DR also contended in stronger terms that
the Capital A/cs of family members are not evidence to show that the
withdrawals shown by them were in fact utilised for improvement of the
house sold by assessee and not for any other property. However, we find
that even while giving benefit of assessee’s own withdrawals, the CIT(A) has
made a mistake. Admittedly, the assessee has incurred cost of Rs. 94,136/-
in FY 1989-90, Rs. 1,59,494/- in FY 1990-91 and Rs. 81,440/- in FY 1991-
92 but the CIT(A) has allowed deduction of first two items only and not
allowed deduction of Rs. 81,440/- incurred by assessee during the FY 1991-
Therefore, to that limited extent, there is a mistake in CIT(A)’s order.
Hence, we allow claim of cost of Rs. 81,440/- incurred by assessee during
the FY 1991-92 with indexation benefit in addition to what has already been
allowed by AO and CIT(A).
Ld. AR has also pointed out a mistake in AO’s calculation of taxable
gain in assessment-order. For an immediate reference, the working given by
AO is re-produced below:
Page 15 of 17
Late Shri Bal Krishna Joshi through L/H Shri Bhoopendra Joshi, Indore. ITA No. 402/Ind/2023 – AY 2008-09
“…..Thus, long term capital gain will be worked out as under:
Date of acquisition 01/04/1976 Date of transfer 10/09/2007 Sale proceeds Rs. 85,00,000/- Less: Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 443000 x 551/100 Rs. 24,40,930/- Cost of improvement in F.Y. 89-90 94156 x 551/172 = 3,01,627/- Cost of improvement in FY 90-91 159494 x 551/182 = 4,82,863/- Rs. 6,41,370/- Rs.30,82,300/-
Long Term Capital Gain Rs.54,17,700/
Ld. AR pointed out that the AO has made a mathematical mistake and
allowed deduction of total indexed cost of improvement at Rs. 3,01,627/- (+)
4,82,863/- = Rs. 6,41,370/- whereas the total comes to Rs. 7,84,490/-
Thus, there is an apparent mistake in the order of AO. We direct the AO to
modify his assessment-order to remove this mistake and allow correct
amount to assessee.
In the final conclusion, we direct the AO to allow a further deduction
of cost of improvement of Rs. 81,440/- in FY 1991-92 incurred by assessee
with indexation benefit as per law and also to remove the mistake narrated
in preceding para. This way, the assessee succeeds partly.
Page 16 of 17
Late Shri Bal Krishna Joshi through L/H Shri Bhoopendra Joshi, Indore. ITA No. 402/Ind/2023 – AY 2008-09
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed partly.
Order pronounced in open court on 21.05.2024.
Sd/- sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक /Dated : 21.05.2024 CPU/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 17 of 17
