9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hom the same was done. The assessee had only relied upon quotation dated 26.6.1999 which was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) that the said quotation was not an evidence of actual expenditure incurred on renovation works in the hotel. In the absence of the bills of material and labour or any proof of having incurred renovation expenditure on the hotel building, the claim of the assessee was rightly rejected by the CIT(A). The Tribunal had further observed that the assessee got various opportunities to substantiate his claim, but he failed to establish his case. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by learned counsel for the assessee in the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and affirmed by the Tribunal which may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1954 SC 397? 3. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. Shri Mool Raj Gupta filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2006-07 on 28.3.2007 at an income of ₹ 1,82,480/- as is clear from the income of computation (Annexure A-1). The said return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 17.5.2007. Shri Mool Raj Gupta expired on 24.5.2007 and his wife Smt. Neeraj Gupta also expired. Thus, the property at Railway Link Amritsar was inherited by their sons, namely, Jatinder Mahajan and Vivek Mahajan which was in a very bad depilated shape requiring urgent repairs. The inherited property was purchased in the year 1999 by Shri Mool Raj Gupta, which was so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 407807 2,00,000/- 18.08.2005 396971 1,45,000/- 15.10.2005 396980 1,50,000/- Total: 4,95,000/- Besides, ₹ 5000/- was paid in cash to Sh. Kamal Kishore Gupta. 4. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide assessment order dated 23.12.2008 (Annexure A-3) at an amount of ₹ 16,85,547/- and provisional attachment under Section 281B of the Act was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the CIT(A) on 22/23.12.2015 (Annexure A-10). The assessee also furnished written pleadings dated 1.9.2016 (Annexure A-11) before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide order dated 8.9.2016 (Annexure A-12) partly allowed the appeal by deleting the addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- out of ₹ 5,00,000/- on account of renovation. Against the order, Annexure A-12, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 23.11.2016 (Annexure A-13). The assessee also submitted the written pleadings dated 26.7.2017 (Annexure A-14) before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure A-15) upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the said addition of ₹ 10,31,906/- by observing as under:- I have considered the submission of the appellant and the assessment order. The appellant had made out a case that, inter alia, original bills of the renovation expenses claimed at ₹ 10,31,906/- were stolen during the theft and filed the copy of the FIR dated 14.07.2008 in support of his claim. For this reason the bills could not be produced before the AO during assessment proceedings. Further, the appellant relied upon the certificate from architect whose copy was submitted in the paper book. However, the perusal of working of the architect given on page 14 to 16 of the paper book reveals that the said report of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of the bills of material and labour or any proof of having incurred renovation expenditure on the hotel building, the claim of the assessee was rightly rejected by the CIT(A). The Tribunal had further observed that the assessee got various opportunities to substantiate his claim, but he failed to establish his case. 9. In view of the above, no illegality or perversity could be pointed out by learned counsel for the assessee in the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and affirmed by the Tribunal which may warrant interference by this Court. No question of law, much less, substantial question of law arise in the appeal. 10. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
