Tribunal Decision: Disallowance dismissed, Capital Gains upheld, AO directed to verify purchase cost.

The Tribunal dismissed the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) based on a Supreme Court decision. It upheld the addition of Rs. 20,00,000 as Long Term Capital Gains due to insufficient evidence supporting ownership claims. However, it directed the AO to verify and allow cost of purchase and indexation benefits, partially granting the appeal for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition of Rs. 20,00,000 as Long Term Capital Gains.
3. Denial of cost of purchase and indexation benefits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia):
The assessee initially raised an issue regarding the disallowance of Rs. 7,000 on account of brokerage, Rs. 15,000 on account of commission, and Rs. 17,985 on account of interest paid on loan under Section 40(a)(ia). However, the assessee's counsel chose not to press this ground, acknowledging the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas Service v. CIT (2017) 394 ITR 300 (SC). The Supreme Court held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) applies even if the expenditure is paid during the financial year and nothing remains payable at the year-end. Consequently, this ground was dismissed on merits.

2. Addition of Rs. 20,00,000 as Long Term Capital Gains:
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 20,00,000 as Long Term Capital Gains, arguing that the flat sold was owned by Mr. Prahladrai Bhartiya, who also received the sale proceeds. The AO observed that the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence such as the purchase agreement, bank statements, or balance sheets to support the claim that Mr. Prahladrai Bhartiya solely financed the flat's purchase. The AO, therefore, attributed 1/3rd of the sale consideration to the assessee, resulting in a taxable long-term capital gain of Rs. 20,00,000. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting that the assessee did not provide evidence to prove otherwise and that none of the co-owners paid capital gains tax on the sale.

3. Denial of Cost of Purchase and Indexation Benefits:
The assessee argued that if the flat was presumed to be owned by him, the cost of purchase and indexation benefits should be allowed. The Tribunal observed that the purchase agreement dated 29-11-1999, produced for the first time before the Tribunal, needed verification by the authorities below. The Tribunal directed the AO to give relief for the cost of acquisition and cost inflation index as per Sections 48 and 49 of the Act, after verifying the purchase deed and other credible material brought on record by the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) based on the Supreme Court's decision. It upheld the addition of Rs. 20,00,000 as Long Term Capital Gains, given the lack of evidence to support the assessee's claim that the flat was solely owned and financed by Mr. Prahladrai Bhartiya. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the cost of acquisition and indexation benefits after proper verification, thereby partly allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

---