HARINI SAMPATH,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTNL TAXN, WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 337/CHNY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 April 2024AY 2015-16Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 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 assessee had now provided a certificate from the construction company confirming the aggregate amount received for the project. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident, sold a property and offered long-term capital gains. The Assessing Officer disallowed the cost of construction for lack of evidence, making an addition. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition despite the assessee providing bank statements and a confirmation from the construction company.

What were the issues?

Whether the cost of construction of a building can be disallowed for computing capital gains due to lack of adequate evidence, and if subsequent production of evidence warrants deletion of the addition.

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, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 arises out an order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai [CIT(A)] on 11-03-2022 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28-12-2017. The sole grievance of the assessee is disallowance of cost of construction of building at Adyar while computing the capital gains. Having heard rival submissions, our adjudication would be as under. The assessee is a non-resident and sold a property during the year.

2.

The assessee offered long-term capital gain of Rs.130.47 Lacs on sale of certain building. The Ld. AO disallowed cost of construction of building for want of adequate evidences and made addition of Rs.48.13 Lacs. This property was situated at Adyar which was jointly owned by the assessee and her sister.

3.

During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that actual expenses incurred for building was Rs.3.11 crores and the assessee was entitled to claim 50% of the same. However, she made a claim only for Rs.1.50 Crores. The assessee furnished bank statement as additional evidence which was subjected to remand proceedings. The Ld. AO observed that amount of Rs.205.27 Lacs was received by M/s Devinarayanan Housing from Mrs. Ranjani Venkataraman who had been making payment on behalf of the assessee also. The total payment spent for construction was Rs.221.57 Lacs and 50% of the same would be allowable to the assessee. However, the assessee reiterated that the payment made to M/s. Devinarayanan Housing was Rs.254.34 Lacs which was evidenced from the bank statement. However, in absence of any confirmation, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed stand of the Ld. AO and sustained addition of Rs.38.21 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. AR has placed on record certificate dated 09.05.2022 from M/s Devinarayanan Housing which clearly states that credit received in their bank accounts towards contract receipts for the project work at Adyar aggregates to Rs.254.34 Lacs. We find that for this reason alone, Ld. CIT(A) did not concur with the stand of assessee and since now the assessee has filed the requisite confirmation, the impugned addition of Rs.38.21 Lacs has no legs to stand. By deleting the same, we allow the appeal of the assessee. 5. The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 09th April, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा23 / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद5 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे7ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated 09-04-2024 DS आदेशकीKितिलिपअ%ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. � थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु?/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडDफाईल/GF

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →