Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore
Smt. Padma Bai Jain, Khandwa vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 , Khandwa on 29 January, 2020
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, इंदौर यायपीठ, इंदौर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
INDORE BENCH, INDORE
BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.429/Ind/2018
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Smt. Padma Bai Jain, ITO, Ward-1
Khandwa Vs. Khandwa
(Appellant) (Revenue )
PAN No.BAJPB5264M
Appellant by Shri Ashish Goyal, & N.D. Patwa, ARs
Revenue by Shri Puneet Kumar Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 22.01.2020
Date of Pronouncement 29 .01.2020
ORDER
PER MANISH BORAD, AM.
The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of assessee is pertaining to assessment year 2013-14 is directed against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II (in short 'Ld.CIT'], Indore, dated 22.01.2018 which is arising out of the order u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the 'Act') dated 16.09.2016 framed by ITO-1, Khandwa.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
1)On the fact and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT ITANo.429/Ind/2018 Stm Padma Bai Jain (A)- II, Indore erred in sustaining the addition of Rs4,68,132 on renovation by stating that the huge amount of Rs.l,10,OOO were paid to contractor in F.Y.1990-91 for which no proof before the learned A.O. was submitted and the contractor showing income of Rs.2800 per month as wages in ration-card and thus disbelieved the expenses on renovation which is wrong, illegal and unjustified.
2)The learned CIT (A)-II, Indore failed to see-
a)That the house being three storied purchased by the assessee was old construction and require renovation and thus expenditure were incurred.
b)That the contractor has admitted before the learned ITO- I, Khandwa regarding work of renovation completed by him during F.Y.1990-91.
c) That the personal details of contractor is not relevant to the appellant as he has completed the renovation work.
3)The appellant prays for the relief.
4)Without prejudice to the above, the addition sustained by the learned CIT (A)-II, Indore were excessive.
5)The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal as and when necessity or occasion arises.
3. Brief facts is culled out from the records relating to the issue raised before us are that the assessee is an individual. Notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act for the purpose of assessment under section 147 of the Act was duly served. In compliance thereto she filed return on 31.03.2016 showing income at Rs.8,85,781/-. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were duly served upon the assessee. The assessee disclosed income of Rs.8,85,781/- under the head Long Term Capital gain. In computing the capital gain assessee claimed Indexed cost of improvement at Rs.4,68,132/-. This claim of the assessee was declined by the assessing officer for 2 ITANo.429/Ind/2018 Stm Padma Bai Jain non-submission of bills and documents in order to support the cost of construction of Rs.1,00,000/- incurred for repair and other work during financial year 1990-91. Along with disallowance of expenses incurred on renovation of house at Rs.4,68,132/-, various other additions were also made assessing the income at Rs.73,59,910/-.
4. Aggrieved with the additions, assessee came in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. However, the assessee failed to get any relief for the addition of Rs.4,68,132/-.
5. Now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the disallowance of indexed cost of improvement of Rs.4,68,132/-.
6. Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions and paper book running from pages 1 to 19.
7. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of lower authorities.
8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Sole grievance of the assessee which has been raised in ground No.1 to 4 are against the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of claim for indexed cost of improvement of Rs.4,68,132/-. We observe that the assessee is a senior citizen, aged about 90 years. She purchased plot of land in 1973 on which residential home was constructed. Thereafter, repair & renovation work was done during financial year 1990-91. She claimed to have been incurred Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost of improvement of the residential house for the work relating to construction of toilet, 3 ITANo.429/Ind/2018 Stm Padma Bai Jain bathroom, pipeline fitting, tile fixation and plastering of rooms. She engaged a contractor Mr. Manohar for dong this work. The affidavit of the contractor Mr. Manohar is placed on record. His statement was also taken by the assessing officer before whom he confirmed to have carried out the aforesaid work of construction and repair for consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. This facts stands un-rebutted.
9. We, therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also of the fact that the assessee is aged about 90 years having accumulated part savings, an affidavit of the contractor and his statement supporting the claim of the assessee, find no reason to deny the claim of cost of improvement of Rs.1,00,000/- during F.Y. 1990-91. Thus, both the lower authorities were not justified in denying the claim of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 4,68,132/-. We accordingly delete the addition of Rs.4,68,132/- and allow ground nos. 1 to 4 of the assessee's appeal. Ground No.5 is general in nature which needs no adjudication.
10. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The order pronounced in the open Court on 29.01.2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
दनांक /Dated : 29th January, 2020
4
ITANo.429/Ind/2018
Stm Padma Bai Jain
Patel/PS
Copy to: The Appellant/Respondent/CIT concerned/CIT(A)
concerned/ DR, ITAT, Indore/Guard file.
By Order,
Asstt.Registrar, I.T.A.T., Indore
5