Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 arises against the disallowance of a cost of improvement claim of Rs. 27,00,000/-. This amount was treated as unexplained cash credits under Sections 68 and 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Revenue could not dispute that the assessee had not claimed the cost of improvement in the relevant previous year. The property was acquired in preceding assessment years, making the addition under Section 68 unsustainable.
Key Issues
Whether the cost of improvement treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 is valid when the property was acquired in a prior year?
Sections Cited
143(3), 68, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Rohtash Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 66, New Pragatesheel Ward-62(1), Apartment, Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi-110096 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AUKPS4324B Assessee by: Ms. Uma Upadhaya, CA & Sh. Pawan Garg, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078024419(1) dated 30.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Coming to the sole substantive issue between the parties herein, it is noticed that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s cost of improvement claim of Rs.27,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, in assessment order dated 29.04.2021 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Rohtash Kumar 4. The above being the clinching factual position, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee had nowhere claimed the impugned cost of improvement amounting to Rs.27,00,000/- in the relevant previous year as the corresponding immovable property had been acquired in the preceding assessment year(s) only. I therefore, see merit in the assessee’s vehement contentions herein to delete the impugned cost of improvement addition u/s 68 in his hands. Ordered accordingly. `