9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .ft. built up area has been taken @ Rs.225/- per sq.ft. amounting to Rs.54 lacs. CIT(A) has mentioned about the documentary evidence in form of valuation report which could have been filed by the assessee in support of his contentions and the fact that the assessee has since filed a copy of the valuation report, we believe that in the present case, where there are withdrawals from the assessee s account, however, in absence of any bills/vouchers supporting the construction activities, the valuation report would be germane and relevant to determine the appropriate cost of construction which can be allowed to the assessee, we admit the same and deem it appropriate to set aside the matter to the file of the AO to examine the Valuation Report a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant craves leave to add, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of appeal or before the appeal is being heard. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application has been filed. On perusal of records, it is noted that the appeal was filed way back in the year 2019 and the matter has been adjourned from time to time on account of various reasons. It was, accordingly, decided that no useful purpose would be served in adjourning the matter any further and based the material available on record and after hearing the ld. DR, the matter is being disposed off. 3. In ground No.1, the assessee has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(A) in not allowing the cost of improvement of the buildin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed by the AO and the remaining withdrawals were held to be not sufficiently explained in absence of any nexus so established by the assessee in terms of the amount so withdrawn and the investments made in the construction of the building. Accordingly, out of Rs.31,06,000/-, cash withdrawals of Rs.11,50,000/- and whole of the amount of Rs.22 lacs withdrawn during the Financial Year 2011-12 were not considered eligible as cost of construction/improvement while working out the Long Term Capital Gain and an addition of Rs.25,04,534/- was made under the head Long Term Capital Gains. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and it was submitted that at the time of sale, the property was a three storey ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was no clarity regarding purpose of the withdrawal, the AO has rightly restricted the benefit to the assessee. It was, accordingly, held that the assessee has failed to produce conclusive documentary evidence which could link the withdrawals made for investment in construction/improvement of the building. It was further held by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee could have given Valuation Report by any approved Valuer in support of his contention of cost of construction and cost of improvement. However, the assessee has not filed any such necessary documents or evidence and accordingly, it was held that no interference is called for in the findings of the AO and accordingly, the addition so made by the AO was confirmed. 7. Against said fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppropriate to set aside the matter to the file of the AO to examine the Valuation Report and decide the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In ground No.2, the assessee has challenged the sustenance of disallowance of Rs.1 lakh out of various expenses claimed by the assessee. 11. In this regard, briefly the facts of the case are that in the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has declared sales of Rs.27,01,627/- in respect of his hotel business run in the name and style of M/s A.P. Residency and net profit has been declared at Rs.1,48,549/- which appears to be on the lower side. Further, it was obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diture was confirmed. Against said findings and directions of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 14. During the course of hearing, ld. DR is heard who has relied on the order of the lower authorities. 15. On perusal of the orders of both the parties, we find that this is clearly a case of adhoc disallowance which has no rationale and sound basis as no finding has been recorded by the AO that the assessee has claimed any bogus LPG/Diesel expenditure or the expenditure has not been incurred for the purposes of the assessee's business. In the light of same, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted. In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed. 16. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
