JATINDER KUMAR SINGLA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 529/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial 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 Assessing Officer's disallowance of 10% of the cost of improvement was ad-hoc and not based on any plausible reason. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was ordered to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed cost of improvement for property while calculating Long Term Capital Gain. The Assessing Officer disallowed 10% of this cost on an ad-hoc basis. The assessee appealed this disallowance.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the validity of the Assessing Officer's ad-hoc disallowance of a portion of the claimed cost of improvement for capital gains calculation.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

�नधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : None राज�व क� ओर से/ Revenue by :Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 11.11.2024 उदघोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश/Order The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the Ld. Addl. / JCIT (A)-2, Coimbatore [hereinafter referred to as ‘Addl. CIT(A)’], for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The Assessee is aggrieved by the action of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 5,92,409/- being 10% of the amount

529-Chd-2024 Jatinder Kumar Singla, Chandigarh 2 claimed by the Assessee as cost of improvement of property while claiming Long Term Capital Gain.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the Assessee despite notice. I, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR and going through the record.

4.

In this appeal the issue is relating to the cost of improvement claimed by the Assessee for the purpose of calculation of the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains on the sale of property. A perusal of the relevant para 10 of the assessment order would reveal that the Assessing Officer had taken into consideration the Certificate of architect for the purpose of valuation of additional construction work and has also observed the same is to be taken as genuine. However, he has disallowed 10% of the cost of improvement on adhoc basis. This action of the Assessing Officer in my view, is not based on any plausible reason. Therefore, the impugned addition is ordered to be deleted.

5.

The appeal of the Assessee stands allowed.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →